Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

NEW WRIT.

For the County of Perth (Kinross and Western Division), in the room of Katherine Marjory, Duchess of Atholl, D.B.E. (Chiltern Hundreds).— [Captain Margesson.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Glasgow Corporation," presented by Mr. Colville; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 39.]

PAISLEY CORPORATION (CART NAVIGATION) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Paisley Corporation (Cart Navigation)," presented by Mr. Colville; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 40.]

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY.

NON-ARYAN COMMERCIAL TRAVELLERS.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister what action it is proposed to take in regard to the action of the German Government in refusing to permit the entry of British commercial travellers on racial grounds?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): The German law of 6th July, to which I presume the hon. Member refers, has the effect of

debarring from employment as commercial travellers in Germany, persons of non-Aryan race resident in Germany. The effect of this law on non-Aryan commercial travellers of British nationality resident in this country is not clear, and perhaps the hon. Member will bring to my notice any cases of which he has knowledge, where British subjects have been affected.

Mr. Mander: Are the Government prepared to tolerate the action of the German Government in refusing to allow British commercial travellers to go to Germany on purely racial grounds?

Mr. Butler: I am not clear, unless the hon. Gentleman gives me certain cases which he may have in mind, whether in fact the German Government intend this or not.

Mr. Mander: I will communicate with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Kirkwood: There are commercial travellers who are Jews who travel between Glasgow and Berlin, and will not they be allowed to continue to go from Glasgow to Berlin?

Mr. Butler: I would not expect the position to be as serious as that. I should like to examine the case, because, as I have said, the position is not quite clear as to what the German law intends.

ANTI-BRITISH PROPAGANDA.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister whether a reply has been received from the German Government on the subject of anti-British propaganda; and, if not, whether it is proposed to press for a reply?

Mr. Butler: As the Prime Minister informed the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) on 21st November, the German Government will be well aware of the unfortunate effect of such articles on Anglo-German relations, and my noble Friend does not consider it necessary to draw their attention to this fact. The question of a reply does not, therefore, arise.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Has the attention of the hon. Gentleman been called to the recent outbreak of wholly mendacious German propaganda in relation to the operations in Palestine; and


will he consider advising his Noble Friend to draw the attention of the German Government to that, since propaganda is likely to exacerbate the situation in Palestine and lead to further bloodshed there?

Mr. Butler: A recent statement on this particular subject was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I do not doubt that it has come to the attention of the German authorities.

Mr. Dalton: Would it not be better to make sure by instructing His Majesty's Ambassador to tell them?

Mr. Butler: I am satisfied that we can leave the position as it is.

Mr. Mander: Are you afraid to tell them?

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Would the hon. Gentleman consider offering facilities to German military officers to investigate the conditions in Palestine and satisfy themselves of the untruth of these German statements?

Mr. Butler: That is a wider question of which I should require notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — PASSPORTS (FINGER PRINTS).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now consider bringing in regulations as regards stamping on passports, alongside the signature, the print of the right thumb of the holder of the passport, solely for the purpose of identification when travelling abroad?

Mr. Butler: As my hon. Friend was informed by the late Foreign Secretary on 1st December last, there are, apart from the objection which exists in the mind of the public to any requirement of fingerprints, many insurmountable difficulties in the way of the adoption of such a system. My Noble Friend is not convinced that any substantial public benefit would accrue from its adoption.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my hon. Friend aware of the existence of large numbers of forged passports on the Continent of Europe and elsewhere; and does he not think that this would give the authorities some means of curtailing these forgeries?

Mr. Butler: I should want further evidence that the statement which my

hon. Friend has made represents the position.

Mr. Gallacher: Will not the Government withdraw the passport system altogether?

Oral Answers to Questions — CZECHOSLOVAKIA.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether the British Government have approved the plan for a motor-highway to be built between Silesia and Austria across Czechoslovakia, such highway to become German territory, in view of the fact that such proposal was not contemplated in the Munich Agreement and was one of the proposals in the pre-Munich plans of the Reich Government which was dropped owing to British opposition?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on Monday to my hon. Friends the Members for Thornbury (Sir D. Gunston) and Widnes (Mr. Pilkington). I know of no foundation for the statement made at the end of his question.

Mr. Mander: May I take it that the statement in the "Times" to that effect is entirely incorrect?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman may take my statement as correct.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: Will the Under-Secretary have another look at the "Times" of 23rd November, where it was there described by the Berlin correspondent as being part of the Munich plan and of the pre-Munich plan of the German Government?

Mr. Butler: I will certainly be glad to look at the "Times" in question.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Prime Minister whether he will publish as a White Paper the final delimitation of the frontiers between the German Reich and Czechoslovakia as confirmed by the Commission of Ambassadors, together with a map showing the changes beyond the 10th October line?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister whether, as the cession to Germany of a corridor 40 miles long and 60 yards wide for the purpose of the construction of a military road from Breslau


to Vienna is inconsistent with the neutrality of the Czechoslovak Republic in time of war, he will say what action he proposes to take and how the United Kingdom's guarantee of the frontiers of Czechoslovakia is affected?

Mr. Butler: On the basis of such information as is in my possession, I am not in a position to confirm the assumption in the hon. Member's question and I would refer him to the reply to my hon. Friends, the hon. and gallant Member for Thornbury (Sir D. Gunston) and the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Pilkington) on 28th November, to which I have at present nothing to add.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Does it mean that this corridor is not to be German territory as we have been informed?

Mr. Butler: We have not received final information on the matter.

Mr. H. C. Williams: On a point of Order. Having regard to the Rules of the House which do not allow an hon. Member to ask more than three questions, is there any limit, having regard to the interests of other hon. Members, as to the number of supplementary questions which can be asked in circumstances which deprive a large number of hon. Members of an opportunity of asking a question?

Mr. Speaker: I have always taken the view and have said so on more than one occasion that the putting of supplementary questions is a matter within my discretion.

Mr. Bellenger: Is it in order for an hon. Member to question the discretion of the Chair in a matter of this sort?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is in order in putting the point.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA AND JAPAN.

Mr. Day: asked the Prime Minister whether he has any information and can state the present position and situation existing in Sinkiang and Outer Mongolia; whether a British Consulate-General is established at Kashgar; can he state the number of British residents in this district; and in what manner British interests are represented?

Mr. Butler: Peace has been restored throughout the province of Sinkiang after the disturbances of last year. My Noble Friend has no special information about

the situation in Outer Mongolia. There is a British Consul-General at Kashgar, who represents British interests there. In 1936–37 there were about 600 residents of British nationality in Sinkiang.

Mr. Day: Are we to understand that where there is no British consul his Majesty's Government ask the consuls of other Governments to look after British interests?

Mr. Butler: I have given the precise information for which the hon. Member has asked.

Mr. Alexander: Has the hon. Gentleman no information about British residents in 1936, and is he not keeping in touch with the matter?

Mr. Butler: Naturally it takes some time to get information from this district, and I have given the statistics that I have in my possession.

Commander Marsden: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the attempts being made by the Japanese naval mission at Tsingtao to control British exports from China; and what action he is taking to prevent this interference with legitimate British trade?

Mr. Chorlton: asked the Prime Minister by what right the Japanese naval mission at Tsingtao recently refused to allow a local British firm to export 28 cases of bristles?

Mr. Butler: A system has for some months been in force at Tsingtao under which, in addition to the usual Customs formalities, traders have had to obtain export permits from the Japanese Naval Mission. His Majesty's Government do not admit the right of the Japanese naval authorities to insist on this requirement. They have made representations to the Japanese authorities in cases where interference with British shipments has occurred, and they will continue to do so when occasion requires.

Mr. Chorlton: Will the hon. Member do something further, in order to get some definite action taken?

Mr. Butler: We are doing our best, in difficult circumstances.

Mr. Chorlton: asked the Prime Minister by what right a British firm at Tsingtao were recently prevented by the Japanese naval mission from shipping a


case of steel samples to their agency in Shanghai, and have been directed in future to apply for permission to the Japanese Consulate through the British Consul-General?

Mr. Butler: My Noble Friend has received no official information regarding this particular case, but he is making inquiries.

Mr. Moreing: asked the Prime Minister whether he has yet received a satisfactory reply to the representations made, both in Shanghai and Tokyo, that the restrictions which prevent Chinese workmen employed in British factories from travelling in tramcars to their work should be removed?

Mr. Butler: The position remains unsatisfactory, and His Majesty's Government are continuing to press the matter with the Japanese authorities.

Mr. Moreing: Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the attitude that is being taken up by the Japanese Government on this matter? I have raised this point time and again. I raised it on 25th July, and my hon. Friend told me that protests were being made to the Japanese authorities. Is there nothing more that we can do? Can we not do something to get this right of British subjects recognised?

Mr. Butler: I am sorry that the position remains unsatisfactory, but the employés of the tram company are now able to travel in the trams proceeding to Yangtze-poo for overhaul.

Mr. Moreing: Is it not adding insult to injury to be told that they are allowed to travel in the trams? It is not a question of the workers travelling in the trams but of the workers going to the factories.

Sir Percy Harris: Does the Under-Secretary realise that many industries belonging to British owners have been ruined? Will he not make even stronger representations than before?

Mr. Butler: The supplementary questions indicate the importance which is attached to these matters.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (VISIT TO ITALY).

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Prime Minister for what purpose he intends to visit Italy in the near future?

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to accept the invitation of the Italian Government to visit Signor Mussolini in Rome in the near future?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): I have gladly accepted this opportunity of following up and maintaining the personal contact which I recently made with Signor Mussolini at Munich.

Mr. Bellenger: Am I right in assuming that the right hon. Gentleman does not propose taking this House into his confidence before he embarks on this journey?

Hon. Members: Answer!

Mr. Bellenger: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman this question: Will he give the House the assurance that on this visit substantial British interests will not be bartered and exchanged for his appeasement policy?

Mr. Attlee: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to visit Signor Mussolini before there has been a cessation of intervention in Spain and of attacks by Italian airmen on British ships?

The Prime Minister: The date of the visit has not yet been fixed.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that is a consideration he is bearing in mind, and whether he thinks that to promote appeasement he should visit Signor Mussolini until there has been some sign of appeasement on that side?

The Prime Minister: I think that it might have a beneficial effect.

Mr. A. Henderson: In view of the fact that the Italian Prime Minister stated that he accepted in principle the intention of the Prime Minister to visit Italy, may I ask the Prime Minister, first, what he understands by "in principle," and, secondly, whether the invitation to visit Rome emanated from Signor Mussolini or from His Majesty's Government?

The Prime Minister: In answer to the first part of the question, the acceptance "in principle" meant subject to the fixing of a date: and with regard to the second part, Signor Mussolini spoke to me about a visit to Rome when I was in Munich.

Mr. Mander: Can the Prime Minister say whether he proposes to pay a visit to Burgos on the way back?

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST AFRICA (BOUNDARIES).

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether negotiations have been opened between His Majesty's Government and the Italian Government with a view to a definite agreement on the boundaries between the Sudan, Kenya, and British Somaliland on the one side and Italian East Africa on the other, and with regard to other questions affecting British and Italian interests, respectively, as provided in the Anglo-Italian Agreement?

Mr. Butler: Negotiations have not yet been opened, but it is expected that they will begin shortly.

Mr. Henderson: Can the Under-Secretary say whether it is intended to invite the Egyptian Government to participate in this conference?

Mr. Butler: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Egyptian Government are interested in many of these questions, and there will be close collaboration with them.

Major Dower: Is it possible in the meanwhile for my right hon. Friend to make arrangements for the obtaining of water over the border, especially water for cattle—such arrangements as existed before Abyssinia was annexed, and the absence of which is causing trouble?

Mr. Butler: All matters that are causing trouble will, no doubt, form the subject of these negotiations.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Prime Minister what steps are being taken by the British consular authorities in the Spanish Republic to expedite the return of the demobilised members of the British battalion of the International Brigade?

Mr. Viant: asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to state when the British section of the International Brigade of volunteers who were engaed in Spain are likely to reach this country?

Mr. Watkins: asked the Prime Minister whether he has considered the representations of relatives of British volunteers who have been withdrawn from the Spanish Government forces for weeks and are now on the French-Spanish border; and whether he will take steps to expedite the return of these men to this country?

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Prime Minister whether he can make any statement about the obstacles raised by the French Government to the return of British volunteers from Spain to England through France?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government have taken steps to facilitate the repatriation of these volunteers, including those referred to by the hon. Member for Central Hackney (Mr. Watkins), but the administrative difficulties connected with establishing the identities of large numbers of men, most of whom left this country without passports, and with obtaining permission for them to travel through France, have inevitably taken some little time to overcome. I am glad to say that, thanks largely to the helpful attitude of the French Government, the necessary arrangements are now virtually complete, and although I cannot promise any definite date, it is expected that the men will leave for this country in a week or ten days' time.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the fact that these men have been demobilised for two months and have been waiting and expecting week after week to be returned, will the Minister see that everything possible is done to get them home as soon as possible?

Mr. Butler: I appreciate the anxiety of the hon. Member, and that is why we have taken particular trouble to overcome the difficulties to which I have referred.

Mr. Fleming: Are we to understand that the cost of repatriating these volunteers of the International Brigade is falling upon the British taxpayer?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir, not necessarily so. Anyone who is in a position to refund the cost will be asked to do so.

Mr. Watkins: Is the hon. Member aware that nationals of other countries have been repatriated in a much smaller


space of time than our own countrymen? Will he do his utmost to get these men back as soon as possible?

Mr. Butler: Certainly. That is our object.

Miss Rathbone: Was it not understood that the cost of repatriation should be borne by the countries represented on the Non-Intervention Committee? Why should these men have to pay their own costs, when they have voluntarily come back?

Mr. Butler: If the hon. Lady will refer to my answer she will see that if any volunteer is able to refund the cost of his repatriation, it seems reasonable that he should do so. Under the Non-Intervention Committee's plan, part of the cost would have have been borne by the countries concerned.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Prime Minister whether he will ask General Franco to effect the immediate release of all prisoners held by him who are British subjects?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government consider that these prisoners' release can best be effected on an exchange basis, and I am glad to say that negotiations for such an exchange are now almost completed.

Mr. Strauss: Exchanged for whom? For British prisoners in the hands of the Spanish Government?

Mr. Butler: These matters are in the hands of the Commission under Sir Philip Chetwode, and I should require notice of any further question.

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister how many British ships have been hit by air-bombs in Spanish Government ports since 1st October last?

Mr. Butler: According to my Noble Friend's information, nine British ships have received direct hits in Spanish Government ports during this period.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Can the hon. Member say how many protests have been made to General Franco and Signor Mussolini?

Mr. Butler: I cannot, without notice, give the exact number of protests that have been made to the Burgos authorities.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Have any protests been made since 1st October?

Mr. Butler: No doubt, protests have been made where we have regarded the attacks as deliberate.

Mr. Alexander: May I ask the Prime Minister whether we may take it that when he goes to Rome he will raise specifically the attacks by bombing planes on British ships, to the great danger of British lives and British property?

Mr. Butler: rose—

Hon. Members: The Prime Minister!

Mr. Alexander: On a point of Order. May I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that we understood many months ago that the Prime Minister would answer questions put to him in this House on foreign policy? In this case a matter affecting his own personal action has been put to him, and we are entitled to a reply?

Mr. Speaker: I take it the Prime Minister can discriminate between one question and another.

Mr. Attlee: When this matter was raised, it was specifically stated by the Prime Minister that on matters involving policy, main matters, he would answer when he was present. He is present now. He has had a question put to him specifically relating to his own personal activities, and it is not fair to the House that it should be put off, and put on to the Under-Secretary.

The Prime Minister: I have no objection to answering the question, if I am allowed to do so. I said before I went to Paris that I was not prepared to say before-hand what was going to be discussed, and I am in the same position to-day with regard to my visit to Signor Mussolini.

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister whether Signor Mussolini made it plain in the first conversations between His Majesty's Government and the Italian Government in the month of March, 1938, that he was not prepared to see General Franco defeated?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir.

Mr. Noel-Baker: May I ask on what evidence His Majesty's Government founded the view expressed by the Foreign Secretary in the House of Lords


that Signor Mussolini had made it plain in the first conversations that he was not prepared to see Franco beaten?

Mr. Butler: The conversations to which my Noble Friend referred had relation to the bringing into force of the Anglo-Italian Agreement.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it not a fact that there is not one word in the Foreign Secretary's speech about conversations relating to the bringing into force of the Treaty? He only referred to the first conversations, which took place in March.

Mr. Butler: I am told by my Noble Friend that the conversations he had in mind were the conversations relating to the coming into force of the Agreement.

Mr. Noel-Baker: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at an early date.

Mr. Benn: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister what replies have been received by His Majesty's Consul at Palma, and by the British Agent at Burgos, to their request for the release of the wheat ships; by what type of vessel these ships were captured, and why there was a delay of five days in demanding the release of the "Mount Cynthos"; and whether other British cargoes are similarly held by the Spanish rebel forces?

The Prime Minister: My Noble Friend hopes shortly to receive reports from the British Agent at Burgos and His Majesty's Consul at Palma. The instructions to which the right hon. Gentleman refers were despatched as soon as full details of the nature of the cargo of the "Mount Cynthos" were available. Certain other foreign ships with British cargoes have been held, and representations have been made.

At the end of Questions—

Mr. Benn: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the failure of His Majesty's Government to take effective action to secure the immediate release of British cargoes illegally held by the Spanish rebels.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public import-

ance, namely, "the failure of His Majesty's Government to take effective action to secure the immediate release of British cargoes illegally held by the Spanish rebels." The question is still under consideration and communications are going on with the authorities, and I certainly could not allow the right hon. Gentleman's request.

Mr. Henn: On a point of Order. May I draw your attention to the fact that ineffective protests of this character have been going on for months, and that the appearance of an order or a British warship at Palma would secure the immediate release of these vessels?

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman must remember that the Standing Order under which he asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House is that it must be on a definite matter of urgent public importance.

Mr. Benn: I know, Sir, but the definiteness is the capture of British cargoes and the urgency is the failure of the Government to secure their release, which could be done in half an hour if they wished to do it.

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter of opinion.

Mr. Alexander: May I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that this matter is of the most definite and urgent importance, because of the hourly effect upon our commerce in London? I put it to the House yesterday, to the Under-Secretary of State, that the insurance rates had already risen in 24 hours from 7s. 6d. to 40s. per cent. because of the seizure of these ships. I am assured this morning that later in the day many contracts of insurance had risen to 10 guineas per cent. and that the whole, immediate, commercial position is endangered by the failure of the Government to take action effectively on 24th November. It is now 30th November, and still the position is in chaos.

Mr. Speaker: All that may be quite true, but it does not alter my opinion.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Are we to understand that the Government look upon a complete act of piracy as something about which they should negotiate?

Mr. Benn: On the matter of urgency, may I mention that I understand, although I have no official confirmation,


that a third ship has been taken to Palma with another British cargo? May I urge that as a consideration why the Government should take immediate and effective action?

Mr. Speaker: It is perfectly clear to me that the matter which the right hon. Gentleman is raising does not come under the Standing Order.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what action it is possible for this House to take when there is a matter which requires, in the opinion of many Members, urgent action and the Government do not propose to take any urgent, immediate action at all? I am submitting to you that the purpose of the Standing Order is to allow this House immediately to bring before the Government, the House and the country something that requires immediate action, and in view of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) has said of the effect of what is going on at this moment, our demand is that something should be done to stop it at once.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the Government are now engaged in negotiations.

Mr. Attlee: The point is that we have had no suggestion by the Government that they are taking urgent action. I would remind you that during the last two years we have been told again and again that representations are being made, and all our experience is that nothing whatever happens after the representations. That is why we are asking for more drastic action in this case in view of its grave repercussions on British commerce.

The Prime Minister: I submit, in view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, that the Government have taken what, obviously, must be the first step to be taken in a matter of this kind, namely, to make representations to the authorities concerned. Our agent is now at this moment engaged in these representations, and until we get his report it is impossible for us to take any further action.

Mr. Attlee: In these matters where there is a grave issue at stake it is usual for a Government that means business to demand an answer—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—yes, to demand a reply at

once or within a certain period of time, and we have had no indication whatever from the Government—

Mr. H. G. Williams: On a point of Order.

Mr. Speaker: We can have only one point of Order at a time. I understand the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition is putting his point of Order.

Mr. Attlee: The point I am putting is that we are asking what effective action will be taken immediately, but all that we have had as a reply from the Government is that they are pursuing what, in our view, is the usual dilatory course of action in any complaint made in matters of this kind. We wish for some assurance—and that is why we are asking leave to move the Adjournment—that there will be something more than the kind of representations and dilatory methods that we have had during the last two years on all these questions.

Mr. H. G. Williams: On a point of Order. Before you deal, Mr. Speaker, with the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask whether it is competent for hon. Members to make controversial speeches in raising a point of Order?

Mr. Maxton: May I put this point to the Prime Minister? You have ruled, Mr. Speaker, that this is not a matter you can accept as coming under the Standing Order, and I do not see that there is anything else that the House can do but accept your Ruling. Surely, however, the Government will not evade discussion on a point of this importance, and surely the Prime Minister will make time available at the earliest possible moment for a discussion.

The Prime Minister: I do not know whether I may be allowed to say that the following report has come in at this moment from Palma:
Ships not yet released; mistake is admitted and is acknowledged.

Mr. Dalton: In view of the admission by the rebel Powers that they have seized British cargoes, are the Government prepared to demand that they shall at once be released?

Commander Marsden: May I draw attention to the fact that the delay was


not unreasonable as these ships had already run contraband cargo into Government ports?

Mr. Speaker: We cannot have a debate on the subject.

Mr. Benn: Arising from the Prime Minister's reply, for which I thank him, is it not a fact that the masters of these ships carried certificates from the British Consul certifying that they were British-owned cargoes?

Mr. Bellenger: I want to ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on this point. Is it in order to ask the Prime Minister, in view of the explicit statement he has made, whether these ships will be released immediately?

Mr. Speaker: The question cannot be discussed now.

Mr. Garro Jones: On a point of Order. May I say with great respect to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is not my fault that I have to raise this question after a long series of previous questions, but I have risen at least six times before? I desire to ask you whether you will consider a further aspect of this matter, namely, the constraint of British officers of the British Mercantile Marine and seamen, and how long they must be illegally constrained before a matter of this importance can be brought up for discussion?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of Order.

Oral Answers to Questions — ABYSSINIA.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Prime Minister whether the League of Nations has officially recognised that a settlement has been reached, in accordance with international law, between the Ethiopian and Italian Governments?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir.

Mr. MacMillan: In view of the fact that His Majesty's Government have concluded agreements with Italy while she is out-with the law of nations, and a breaker of treaties to which His Majesty's Government have subscribed—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must not put in the form of a supplementary question, a question which would not be allowed to be put on the Paper.

Mr. MacMillan: On a point of Order. The question on the Paper asks whether the League of Nations has officially recognised that a settlement has been reached, in accordance with international law, between the Ethiopian and Italian Governments. The hon. Member has replied, "No." I want to put a supplementary question in order to get further information.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Does it not follow from the Minister's answer that the position of the Italian Government is in point of fact, that of a covenant-breaking aggressor?

Mr. Speaker: That is not for me to decide.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRANCE (TREATIES).

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of British engagements to France, the French treaties of alliance with Russia, Rumania, Poland, and Yugoslavia are still in force?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Member, no doubt, has in mind the Franco-Soviet Treaty of mutual assistance of 2nd May, 1935, the Franco-Polish Treaty of mutual guarantee of 16th October, 1925, the Franco-Rumanian Treaty of friendship of 10th June, 1926, and the Franco-Yugoslav Treaty of friendly understanding of nth November, 1927. So far as His Majesty's Government are aware, these treaties are all still in force.

Mr. Mander: Have the Government definitely inquired from the French Government whether they are in force?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. As far as we are aware, they are in force.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "ROYAL OAK."

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty in what circumstances the sailing of His Majesty's Ship "Royal Oak" from Portsmouth was recently delayed?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Shakespeare): At the time the "Royal Oak" was due to sail the wind was blowing a gale with gusts of over 60 miles per hour and, in view of


the nature of the service on which she was employed, it was not considered wise to attempt to sail her.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is it not the case that His Majesty's ship "Nelson" recently grounded in endeavouring to leave Portsmouth, and that the Admiral had to take train to Plymouth and take another ship there? Is the hon. Member satisfied that capital ships are able to leave Portsmouth at any time, in any wind and weather?

Mr. Shakespeare: I cannot go as far as to say that, but in time of war the chances are that there would not be a capital ship there.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is it not clear from the hon. Gentleman's answer that in cases of emergency capital ships may not be able to leave Portsmouth in certain circumstances?

Commander Marsden: Is it not the case that Portsmouth is only a repairing depot and that the Fleet anchorage is at Spit-head where ships can arrive and sail from in any weather?

Mr. Shakespeare: That is so, and unless repairs are taking place ships of this size would not be at Portsmouth.

DIESEL ENGINES.

Mr. Chorlton: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is intended to fit Diesel engines as the propelling power to any of the new ships for the Navy?

Mr. Shakespeare: Yes, Sir. Some submarines and auxiliary vessels of both 1937 and 1938 programmes will have Diesel engines.

Mr. Alexander: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say to what class of ship this applies? Does it apply to destroyers and smaller vessels?

Mr. Shakespeare: It applies to submarines and auxiliary vessels.

RECRUITING, NEWFOUNDLAND.

Mr. Day: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether any recruiting organisation for His Majesty's Navy is established in Newfoundland; and, if so, can he state the number of candidates for enlistment on any of His Majesty's ships when visiting St. John's, Newfoundland, and the number accepted?

Mr. Shakespeare: Although no recruiting organisation is established in Newfoundland, arrangements are made when possible for desirable recruits to be provisionally examined in one of His Majesty's ships when visiting St. John's. During the present financial year 50 applications have been received, as a result of which nine men have been considered fit for entry, and 11 cases are still under consideration.

Mr. Day: How often do these ships visit St. John's, Newfoundland, for recruiting for the Navy?

Mr. Shakespeare: On an average three ships a year, including a cruiser.

Mr. Day: Do the recruits have their fares paid to England when they are accepted?

Mr. Shakespeare: They are brought here in one of His Majesty's ships.

Viscountess Astor: Is it not true that over 2,000 men from Canada enlisted in December, 1914, in the British Navy and Mercantile Marine, and that nobody realised it at all?

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA (NATIVE LABOUR).

Mr. Banfield: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action he proposes to take to give effect to the recommendations of Major Orde Browne regarding native labour conditions in Northern Rhodesia?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): Proposals for the appointment of a Labour Commissioner and of labour officers, as recommended by Major Orde Browne, have been submitted to me by the Governor, and provision for this purpose is being made in the 1939 Estimates. A labour officer of Northern Rhodesia in Southern Rhodesia has been appointed. The arrangements for recruiting from Barotseland on the lines proposed by Major Orde Browne have formed the subject of discussions between the Governor of Northern Rhodesia and representatives of the Witwatersrand Mines. These, and the other recommendations and suggestions put forward in Major Orde Browne's valuable report, are receiving active consideration.

Mr. Banfield: Is it intended to set up a new labour Department to deal with these matters in view of the report and other statements which are calculated to raise disquiet?

Mr. MacDonald: I have said that the appointment of these officers is receiving consideration.

Mr. Creech Jones: When considering these recommendations will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind the great feeling there is that the penal sanctions should be abolished?

Mr. MacDonald: The whole question of penal sanctions is under consideration at the present moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOLD COAST (MINE LABOUR).

Mr. George Griffiths: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the increase of African labour in the mines of the Gold Coast, he will give instructions that the regulations regarding safety shall be strictly enforced in order that the occurrence of accidents through the neglect of such precautions, as recorded in the report of the chief inspector of mines, shall not again occur?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I am taking up with the Governor as a matter of great importance the question of the best means of ensuring that the regulations are strictly observed.

Mr. Griffiths: Is the Minister satisfied that there has been great laxity over this business?

Mr. MacDonald: There has been some laxity.

Mr. Griffiths: Will you put the screw on now?

Oral Answers to Questions — HONG KONG (FILM CENSORSHIP).

Mrs. Adamson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the complaints of British residents in Hong Kong against the action of the British censor there in withdrawing the licence previously given by him for the public exhibition of the feature film, "Inside Nazi Germany"; whether he is aware that this action was taken after the British censor had been in consultation with the German Consulate; and whether he will have inquiry made into the matter?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I am informed that, prior to the receipt of any representations from the German Consulate, the Hong Kong censor had viewed this film and reserved judgment on it. After a second view, subsequent to the receipt of representations from the German Consul-General, the censor passed the film for silent exhibition only, and it was shown as such. On appeal against this decision the Board of Censors unanimously confirmed it.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST AFRICAN COCOA COMMISSION.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether and when the recommendations of the West African Cocoa Commission, respecting the abolition of the buyers' monopoly and the formation of a sellers' organisation, are likely to be implemented?

Mr. M. MacDouald: The recommendations regarding the formation of a sellers' organisation are of a far-reaching nature. They are receiving very careful consideration in consultation with the Governors of the Colonies concerned, but it is not yet possible to state whether or when they will be carried into effect. The buying agreement was suspended by the parties to it last May and has not been resumed.

Mr. Sorensen: Can the right hon. Gentleman say the approximate date when this proposal will be put into effect?

Mr. MacDonald: I am afraid that I cannot give any approximate date. It is a very far reaching proposal, and is being considered with as little delay as possible.

Mr. Alexander: Can we have the right hon. Gentleman's assurance as Secretary of State that there will be no renewal of the buyers' monopoly with the approval of the Secretary of State?

Mr. MacDonald: I should require notice of an important question like that before I give a definite assurance. All sorts of circumstances have to be borne in mind.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Can the Secretary of State give the names of this buyers' monopoly? Is it not associated in this country with an organisation known as the Popular Front?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE MARKS (COLONIES).

Mr. Woods: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will institute an inclusive charge for the registration of trade names and marks, covering all the colonies, similar in amount and scope to the scheme in operation by France covering all the French colonies, instead of, or in addition to, the separate registration for each colony?

Mr. M. MacDonald: The possibility of an Empire Trade Marks scheme was raised by the Committee which was appointed by the Board of Trade in 1933 to consider and report whether any changes were desirable in the existing law and practice relating to trade marks. Its report is Cmd. 4568. I am advised that as a result of inquiries subsequently made, there did not appear to be sufficient prospect of practical support for an Imperial trade marks scheme to justify His Majesty's Government in pursuing the matter.

Mr. Woods: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since this date the competition which any set of goods has to meet in the Colonies is so keen that it is driving British producers out of the colonial market?

Mr. MacDonald: I have not had representations from the interests concerned about it lately, but I am prepared to look into it again and see whether circumstances have changed since the last inquiry four years ago.

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGANYIKA.

Mr. Woods: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that pressure and menaces are being used to compel German nationals in Tanganyika to become members of the Nazi League; has he any information regarding the activities, methods, and objects of the Nazi League in Tanganyika; and is he taking any steps to safeguard the civil liberties of the residents in Tanganyika?

Mr. M. MacDonald: As regards the first part of the question, I am aware that allegations to this effect have been made, but I have received no evidence to indicate that there has been any illegal activity on the part of the Nazi organisation. A careful watch on this organisation is maintained by the Government of Tanganyika Territory. The hon. Member

can rest assured that all residents in the territory are afforded the full protection of the law.

Major Dower: Would not this problem, and also the uncertainty which exists in Tanganyika, be solved if we made it perfectly clear that in no circumstances would we ever hand back the Mandate?

Mr. Woods: Will the right hon. Gentleman make special inquiries to see whether these allegations were well founded?

Mr. MacDonald: I have asked the Governor recently for a report on the whole matter, and I will see that this particular aspect of it is included in the inquiry. With regard to the other question, I think the statement which was made the other day by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has reassured the people of the Territory.

Mr. Woods: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to any attempt, by use of threats, to force any British subject of German ancestry resident in Tanganyika, to go to Germany for military training; and will he cause inquiries to be made as to the extent to which intimidation of this kind is being used in Tanganyika?

Mr. MacDonald: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. If the hon. Member has information on the subject, I shall be glad to receive it in order that I may make inquiries.

Mr. Woods: Is the Minister prepared to give a guarantee of security to persons giving the information, since that is the difficulty?

Mr. MacDonald: Perhaps the hon. Member will communicate with me, and I will consider the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any report of the circumstances in which British troops shot and killed a 65-year old man, Mussa Shman, at Beithanina village, Palestine, on 18th November last?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I have no information about this matter, but I will ask the High Commissioner for a report.

Mr. Gallacher: If the information, when it has been supplied, proves that this is correct, and if he was an innocent man, will steps be taken to see that his family receives some consideration and compensation?

Mr. MacDonald: I shall have to consider the question on receiving a report, and until then I cannot make any statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — CEYLON.

CONSTITUTION.

Commander Marsden: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the ratio of Tamil to Sinhalese representatives under the present and previous constitutions in Ceylon?

Mr. M. MacDonald: No definite ratio was fixed either in the existing or the previous constitution, but in practice the ration of Sinhalese to Tamil members is approximately four to one in the present Council, and was approximately two to one in the previous Legislative Council.

Mr. Annesley Somerville: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the number of elected members belonging to the different communities in Ceylon, namely, Sinhalese, Ceylon-Tamil, Indian-Tamil, Muslim, Burgher, and European in the State Council of Ceylon, and their respective populations in the country?

Mr. MacDonald: As the answer contains a considerable number of figures I will, with my hon. Friends permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Somerville: In any revision of the constitution which is contemplated, will my right hon. Friend provide for adequate representation for the minorities?

Mr. MacDonald: That is one of the considerations that has engaged the attention of the Governor as well as myself, and we attach very great importance to giving adequate representation for the minorities.

Mr. T. Smith: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House when he is likely to be in a position to make some statement with regard to the proposed changes in the constitution of Ceylon?

Mr. MacDonald: I propose to publish despatches on the question which have passed between the Governor and myself, and I hope it will be possible to do that in the very near future, although I cannot give an exact date.

Following is the answer:

The elected members in the present State Council include 39 Sinhalese, seven Ceylon-Tamils, two Indian-Tamils, and one European. At the last census for which figures are available the population figures were approximately as follows: Sinhalese, 6,400,000; Ceylon-Tamils, 517,000; Indian-Tamils, 603,000; Muslims, 285,000; Burghers, 29,000; Europeans, 9,000.

Mr. Somerville: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, as a result of the working of the present constitution in Ceylon, the communal tension between various races has in fact decreased or increased?

Mr. MacDonald: While it has been freely stated that the present constitution has resulted in an enhancement of communalism, I would not like to hazard any exact estimate on the matter.

Mr. Somerville: Is my right hon. Friend aware of a recent statement by the Sinhalese leaders that Ceylon belongs to the Sinhalese and that the minorities must support them in all their demands?

Mr. MacDonald: I am not aware of that statement, and I have not seen it.

Sir Walter Smiles: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the population figures of the Muslim community in Ceylon; and whether this community has been able to secure any elected representatives in the State Council?

Mr. MacDonald: At the last census for which racial figures are available, that of 1921, the Muslim community numbered approximately 285,000. No member of this community has been elected to the present State Council.

Sir W. Smiles: Does my right hon. Friend intend to take any steps to remedy the defects in the constitution?

Mr. MacDonald: As I said in reply to an earlier question, that is one of the matters to which a great deal of thought


has been given, and both the Governor and I attach very great importance to proper representation of the minorities.

EDUCATION BILL.

Sir W. Smiles: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he contemplates taking any action with regard to the recent Education Bill introduced into the State Council of Ceylon, in view of the fact that it is directed against the existence of recognised denominational schools?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I have not yet received any official information about this Bill, and until I do so I cannot say whether any of its provisions may call for intervention on my part.

Sir W. Smiles: Has my right hon. Friend had any representations from missionary societies about that proposed Bill?

Mr. MacDonald: I am not aware of any such representations. They may have come in, but perhaps they would not be brought to my attention until I received information about the Bill also.

PITCAIRN ISLAND.

Mr. Parker: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have been taken to implement the various proposals made by Mr. J. S. Neill and Dr. Duncan Cook in their recent report on Pitcairn Island, particularly with reference to the appointment of a qualified schoolmaster and nurse, and the raising of revenue to provide grants for this and other purposes?

Mr. M. MacDonald: As the answer is necessarily rather long I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Arrangements have been made by the Seventh Day Adventist Mission, at the suggestion of the High Commissioner for the Western Pacific, for a qualified teacher to take up residence on Pitcairn Island, with his wife, and to take charge of the school there. Designs for an issue of Pitcairn Island stamps are now under consideration and it is hoped that the issue will be ready in the summer of 1939. A small landing tax for all visitors to the

island will also be instituted. The revenue from these sources will be paid into a deposit account and will be used for financing such of the various other proposals submitted by Mr. Neill and Dr. Cook as are found to be practicable. Among these, first importance is attached to the training of a local girl as a public health nurse and the arrangement of regular visits of inspection by officers of the Fiji or Western Pacific High Commission services. A King's Regulation was recently enacted giving power to the High Commissioner to control immigration by permit. The necessity for the provision of an improved wireless set, which was among Mr. Neill's proposals, no longer arises since a modern transmitting and receiving set was recently presented to the High Commissioner from an American source and accepted by him on behalf of the Pitcairnese. This set is now in operation. The High Commissioner has reported that local arrangements are being made to give effect to the other less important recommendations made by Mr. Neill.

GIBRALTAR (AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS).

Mr. G. Griffiths: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any scheme is in existence for the evacuation of the civil population of Gibraltar in the event of war breaking out; and, if not, what arrangements are in existence for their protection in the event of the bombardment of Gibraltar from the sea, land, or air?

Mr. M. MacDonald: It would not be in the public interest to give information concerning the defence plans of Gibraltar, which naturally include provision for the security of the civilian population.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether he is aware that, in both the air-raid precautions pamphlets issued by the Government of Gibraltar in 1935 and 1938, respectively, it was stated that attack from the air might include gas; that the Gibraltar City Council has on several occasions in the last few years urged the Government of Gibraltar to make arrangements for the supply of gas masks for the civilian population; that, during the recent crisis, no gas masks


were issued to or available for the civil population other than for the families and servants of the naval authorities; and what action is being, or will be, taken against those responsible for this state of affairs;
(2) whether he is aware that the air-raid precautions pamphlet, No. 1, issued by the Government of Gibraltar in September, 1935, stated that measures for the safeguarding of the civil population against the effect of air or other attack were engaging the attention of the Government of Gibraltar, but that no steps were taken to enrol air-raid wardens or similar officers until 26th September, 1938, when a Government notice was issued, inviting persons to tender themselves for such enrolment on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays; and what action it is proposed to take against the persons responsible for this matter?

Mr. MacDonald: The arrangements for the protection of the civil population in Gibraltar against gas attack were well advanced at the time of the recent crisis, but I am aware that there were deficiencies in certain directions. I am not in possession of information concerning all the detailed points raised in these questions, and have asked the Governor for a full report.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether during the recent crisis any air-raid shelters were available for the civil population of Gibraltar; is he aware that in September, 1935, the Government of Gibraltar issued an air-raid precautions pamphlet, No. 1, in which all civilians were advised, in the event of an air raid, to go at once to an air-raid shelter, a list of 12 shelters being given which could receive nearly all the population; and, seeing that nothing further was published until 29th September last, when a revised pamphlet was issued advising civilians in the event of an air raid to go into the nearst house and remain there, will he state the reason for this change of policy and what was done in the three years between the dates of the two pamphlets to prepare for the protection of the civil population?

Mr. MacDonald: I have not seen a copy of the later pamphlet to which the hon. Member refers, but so far as I am aware, there has been no change of policy and the shelters which existed in 1935 are still available.

REFUGEES.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the refugee problem in the light of discussions on the subject in Paris?

The Prime Minister: On the Paris conversations I can add nothing to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) on 28th November. As regards the refugee problem, an informal meeting of the chairman, vice-chairmen and director of the Inter-Governmental Committee will be held in London at the end of this week, at which the work of the Committee will be reviewed.

Sir P. Harris: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this question is one of very great urgency and that the time factor is very important, and will be impress upon the Committee the necessity for coming to speedy conclusions as to what action should be taken?

The Prime Minister: I think everybody is aware of the urgency of the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR POLICY (DISARMAMENT).

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government intend to secure air parity with Germany, with a view to bringing about an international air limitation agreement?

The Prime Minister: The policy of His Majesty's Government as explained by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air on the 10th of this month, is, without withdrawing any of our previous declarations, to build up an Air Force adequate to ensure the protection of this country, the preservation of our trade routes, and the defence of British territories overseas, as well as to fulfil our international responsibilities and to co-operate in the defence of the territories of our Allies in case of war. As I said on 1st November, the Government is also aiming at the limitation of armaments by agreement as a first stage to practical abolition. We believe the steps we are taking to strengthen the Royal Air Force will contribute to this end.

Mr. Henderson: May I ask the Prime Minister whether the statement made by his predecessor, that His Majesty's Government intended to achieve air parity


with any country within striking distance of these shores, still holds good with His Majesty's Government?

The Prime Minister: I said in my answer, "without withdrawing any of our previous declarations."

Mr. Alexander: Are we to understand now, from the Prime Minister's answer, that the real programme of the Government is to exceed parity with the largest striking force in Europe, having regard to the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has just quoted from the Secretary of State for Air?

The Prime Minister: I do not think I can add anything to the statement I have made.

Mr. Mander: Do the Government think they have the faintest chance of doing that by their present methods?

Oral Answers to Questions — CREDIT FACILITIES FOR FARMERS.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Prime Minister whether he will find time for a discussion of the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Evesham relating to credit facilities for farmers?

[That this House views with grave anxiety the delays which have taken place during the past three years regarding the question of improved credit facilities for farmers; is distressed to note that rates of interest up to 14 per cent. are being charged by some of the commercial banking undertakings; and urges on the Government the necessity of calling an immediate conference of bankers and banking industries, with a view to prompt action being taken in the matter, with a view to proceeding to lend money to farmers along the lines of the Railways (Agreement) Act, 1935, under which £27,000,000 of 2½ per cent. guaranteed debenture stock was issued in January, 1936, at 97 by the Railway Finance Corporation, which was formed to raise and lend money to the four main-line railway companies.]

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I would remind my hon. Friend that under the Standing Orders, facilities exist for the discussion of Private Members' Motions.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware that already favourable concessions

have been granted to Central European Powers, and cannot some similar favourable concessions be granted to Britain's greatest single industry, that of agriculture?

Sir Frank Sanderson: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that it is not so much credit facilities which the farmers require as guaranteed and reasonable prices for the commodities which they produce?

Oral Answers to Questions — BARBADOES (SENTENCES).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information as to whether the Governor of Barbadoes has brought into review the sentences on leaders of the workers involved in the disturbances some months ago in that Colony?

Mr. M. MacDonald: No, Sir.

Mr. Creech Jones: Are there any means whereby representations can be made for a revision of these sentences, in view of their excessive severity, merely for organising trade unions and bringing about combination among the workers themselves?

Mr. MacDonald: This is a matter which must be left to the discretion of the Governor of the Colony concerned.

Mr. Creech Jones: In view of the fact that sentences of 10 years hard labour have been imposed simply because the people were organising the workers, cannot some representations be made to the Governor?

Mr. C. S. Taylor: Is it not a fact that these leaders caused considerable bloodshed in the Colony and deserved the sentences they got?

Mr. James Griffiths: In present circumstances when the question of Colonial possessions is being discussed, is it not very important that the principle of organisation of the workers should be maintained?

Mr. MacDonald: I think that is so, and I have confidence in the discretion of the Governor in putting that principle into practice.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRINIDAD (OIL CONCESSIONS).

Mr. Ronald Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what


steps have now been taken to secure the successful exploitation of oil concessions over the sea bed within the territorial waters of Trinidad?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I have nothing at present to add to the reply given by my predecessor to a similar question by my hon. Friend on 6th April last.

Mr. Robinson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the project to form a joint operating company to exploit these oilfields has been dropped?

Mr. MacDonald: I have said that the discussions are still continuing. Beyond that, I cannot make any statement.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the workers are not exploited as well as the oilfields?

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA (CATTLE SEIZURE).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that 19 of the 21 cattle of Samuel Mwindi, in Kenya, were seized by force by the Government in July; that the forced seizures of the cattle of the Wakambas was indiscriminate and arbitrary without regard to native rights; that after the protest and demonstration of these tribesmen at Nairobi, Mwindi was arrested for asking for the Governor's reply and for the return of his cattle; why Mwindi was prosecuted and deported and his wives and children left without means of maintenance; and whether he will order that Mwindi be brought back and his cattle restored and the Askaris withdrawn from the homes of these people?

Mr. M. MacDonald: As the answer is rather long I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Creech Jones: In view of the gravity of this procedure, which has now become a habit of Colonial Governors, of deporting men who are organising working people to protest against their conditions, will the right hon. Gentleman not—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must not make general accusations against Colonial Governors in a supplementary question.

Mr. Creech Jones: My question directs attention to the fact that men are being deported merely for organising protests against Government action, and I am asking what the Colonial Secretary is doing in this matter, seeing that this has now become a practice in the Barbados, Mauritius and elsewhere.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member cannot raise a matter of that kind in a supplementary question.

Following is the answer:

Yes, Sir. I am aware that cattle belonging to Samuel Mwindi and other natives in the same sub-location on the Machakos district were seized in July because they had refused to bring in their cattle to be branded in accordance with the grazing quota allotted to that area under the destocking policy. The seizures were not indiscriminate in that orders were given to leave all sound working oxen, one milking cow for each boma (or family) and all cows with small calves, and that a record should be made of the cattle taken from each owner. The purpose of these orders was however to some extent frustrated by the non-co-operation of the owners of the cattle. It was at all times open to these natives to have their cattle returned to them on their agreeing to co-operate in the destocking policy.
Samuel Mwindi was deported on 4th October to another district on the recommendation of a judge of the Supreme Court, not on the grounds suggested in the hon. Member's question, but because he had been conducting himself so as to be dangerous to peace and good order, in that the evidence showed that he was a leader, if not the ringleader, in an agitation in opposition to his own tribal authorities, and had been a party to the public cursing of those authorities. As regards the last part of the question I have received a petition praying that Samuel Mwindi should be allowed to return to his home, and I have referred it to the Governor for his observations.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AIR GUARD (INSTRUCTORS).

Mr. Perkins: asked the Secretary of State for Air what medical examination is required by an A-licence pilot before he is allowed to instruct for the Civil Air Guard?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): The standard of medical fitness required for a Class A licence is that prescribed by the International Commission for Aerial Navigation, details of which are contained in Air Navigation Directions, 1936 (A.N.D. 13), paragraphs 88–93 inclusive. No further medical examination is required when an A-licence pilot qualifies as a flying club or Civil Air Guard instructor.

Mr. Perkins: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this A-licence medical examination is notoriously lax and that it is almost impossible to fail in it; is he further aware that certain A-licence pilots suffer from the loss of a limb such as a leg, and does he not think it desirable, in the circumstances, that there should be an extra medical examination?

Captain Balfour: Although the medical examination for a Civil Air Guard instructor is the A-licence examination, before the A-licence holder can undertake that instruction he has to fulfil certain other requirements, such as 250 hours flying, undergoing an instructor's course, including blind flying, at an approved school, and passing certain special tests. Any A-licence pilot who may pass his medical test has to pass these additional tests before he can qualify as an instructor.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

DE-ICING DEVICES.

Mr. Perkins: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the de-icing devices now fitted to the Handley-Page Harrow heavy bomber in use in the Royal Air Force are proving satisfactory?

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Kingsley Wood): Two devices have been undergoing trial. One breaks up ice when formed by the alternate expansion and contraction of rubber tubes on the leading edge of a wing or tail unit; the other distributes a chemical fluid over the vulnerable surfaces which tends to prevent the formation of ice, or melt it if formed. The former has proved satisfactory in the trials while the latter is still in course of being improved upon.

Mr. Perkins: If one kind has proved satisfactory, is there any reason why it should not be fitted to all new air liners?

GERMAN AIR OFFICIALS (VISIT).

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for Air, whether the facts have been communicated to him regarding the visit by German air officials to Britain during which aeroplanes, including Blenheims, were closely inspected by them and answers given to questions by British officers which might lead to prosecution under the Official Secrets Act; and whether he has forwarded, or intends to forward, his information to the Attorney-General for action under the Act?

Sir K. Wood: The hon. Member, I understand, refers to the visit of German air officials which took place in the spring of 1937 when the Royal Air Force were glad to have an opportunity of reciprocating facilities accorded to officers of the Service on a visit to Germany. He can be assured that due consideration was given to questions concerning secrecy, so that the point raised in the last part of his question does not arise.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the very categorical statement made by an expert in the Sunday "Observer," will the Minister make inquiries, and if he finds that this is actually the case, consider what steps are to be taken to stop such occurrences, and if it is not the case see whether something cannot be done to stop the "Observer" from slandering these people?

AERODROME, LOSSIEMOUTH (WATER SUPPLY).

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether in view of the fact that his Department have refused to pay a 75 per cent. grant to the Lossiemouth town council in respect of a water service pipe to the new aerodrome one mile from Lossiemouth, he will explain the reason for now opening negotiations with Elgin town council, despite the greatly increased distance amounting to several miles of the source of water from the aerodrome and the larger cost of laying the pipe, and that the burgh of Elgin abstained from using water from the proposed source even in years when that authority experienced shortage of supplies?

Sir K. Wood: My Department is prepared to pay the full cost of laying a water service pipe one to two miles long from the existing main to the Royal Air Force station at Lossiemouth. The Lossiemouth town council however desire that


my department should accept responsibility for the whole or nearly the whole cost of replacing the existing main from Blackhills to Lossiemouth, a distance of about nine miles. In these circumstances the possibility of other arrangements is being investigated, one of which is to obtain the water from the supply under the control of the Elgin town council, which is only five miles from the aerodrome, and which could, if necessary, be chlorinated.

Mr. Garro Jones: Can the Minister assure the House that the Air Ministry will not, from motives of pique, decline to enter into arrangements with the Lossiemouth town council, which would be less expensive than the proposed new arrangement with the Elgin town council?

Sir K. Wood: I am not aware of any such feeling.

TANKS (CARRIAGE BY AIR).

Mr. Day: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he has received any reports on the performance of the aeroplanes possessed by foreign countries designed to carry small tanks; and whether experiments in this form of transportation of small tanks has been made by aircraft in Great Britain?

Sir K. Wood: Experiments in the carriage of small tanks by air were made in one foreign country some three years ago, but I regret that I am unable to give any detailed information on the matter. The experiments have not since been repeated either in that country—so far as I am aware—or elsewhere.

Mr. Day: If the Minister is aware of the foreign country in which these experiments have been made will he ask His Majesty's representative in that country to make inquiries into this matter?

Sir K. Wood: It was three years ago, but in order to satisfy the hon. Member, I will make inquiries.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION.

AIRSCREWS.

Mr. Perkins: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many of the machines now used by Imperial Airways, Limited, and British Airways, Limited, respectively, are equipped with any form of quick feathering propeller or propeller brake?

Captain Balfour: Four of the aircraft now used by British Airways and one shortly coming into use have fully feathering airscrews. The remainder have either two pitch or constant speed air-screws. The Empire Flying Boats and Ensign class used by Imperial Airways have two-pitch and the Frobisher class constant speed airscrews, but the company at present have no aircraft with fully feathering airscrews.

HANGAR ACCOMMODATION, CROYDON.

Mr. R. Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether adequate hangar accommodation is provided for Imperial Airways liners at Croydon airport?

Captain Balfour: The existing hangar accommodation at Croydon is, I regret, not adequate for the whole of Imperial Airways fleet and from three to five large aircraft have had to be moored in the open. This situation is due partly to the uncertainty which prevailed until recently regarding the future of the London airports, and partly to the fact that the location of the marine and land bases for the Empire air services could only finally be decided last summer. When negotiations were successfully concluded with the Southampton harbour authorities for the provision of the marine base at Southampton, arrangements had to be made to house at Croydon the land aircraft required for the Empire air services. Authority was immediately obtained to erect the additional hangars, and these will be available in April next.

Mr. Perkins: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the Ensign air liner which is now being delivered, was ordered over five years ago, and surely his Department must have realised the necessity for providing this accommodation during that five years?

Captain Balfour: The expectation and the hope at that time was that the land base and the marine base should be combined adjacent to Portsmouth. Unfortunately, that scheme could not be implemented, and it was decided in July last that Southampton should be the marine base, which brought about a new situation as regards the necessity of finding another land aerodrome for the Ensign air liner.

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (VISIT TO PARIS).

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he intends to enter into any new strategic or supply arrangements with the French Air Ministry on his visit to Paris this week; whether he will be accompanied by staff officers; and whether it is proposed to establish any standing organisation for co-operation and liaison between the two air services?

Sir K. Wood: I have accepted an invitation to visit the Aero Exhibition in Paris, and I am taking this opportunity of meeting the French Air Minister and discussing with him matters of mutual interest. I shall be accompanied by three members of the Air Ministry staff. The answer to the first and third parts of the question is in the negative.

Mr. Garro Jones: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it would be common prudence to establish some form of permanent co-operation and contact with the French Air Staff?

Sir K. Wood: I have noted the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ROAD SAFETY DEVICES.

Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyle: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has received any reports as to the value in the reduction of accidents of the use of coloured concrete traffic lines?

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Burgin): Reports indicate that lines dividing a carriageway into traffic lanes are of value in guiding traffic and in helping to reduce the risk of accidents. So far as I am aware, no special merit is attached to coloured concrete as compared with other materials used for this purpose.

Viscountess Astor: Is there any chance of getting rid of the Belisha beacons, which are so offensive to the sight?

CENTRAL LONDON (PARKING PLACES).

Sir Joseph Leech: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in order to reduce the dangerous congestion in Central London caused by the storage of motor vehicles on the public highways, he will take steps to ensure that neighbouring

firms should arrange among themselves to provide joint parking-yards for vehicles of customers visiting their respective establishments?

Mr. Burgin: Parliament has not conferred upon me any power to require shopkeepers either individually or jointly to provide parking accommodation off the highway, although I am glad to say that in a number of instances firms make provision for garaging the cars of their customers.

ROAD AND RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.

Sir F. Sanderson: asked the Minister of Transport the total number of casualties on the roads of Great Britain exclusive of those in which private cars are concerned; and the total number of casualties on the railways for the years 1936, 1937, and 1938, respectively?

Mr. Burgin: My hon. Friend will find the information he desires, so far as it is known, in the following annual publications for 1936 and 1937: "Road Accidents involving Personal Injury," "Report upon Accidents which occurred on the Railways of Great Britain," both of which are available in the Library. The corresponding information for 1938 will be published in due course.

WHIRRS CROSS CORNER, LEYTON.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Transport what increase of traffic was shown by the census taken in August of this year at Whipps Cross Corner, Leyton, compared with the census in August, 1935; and whether he is recommending that traffic lights be erected at that point?

Mr. Burgin: The census shows an increase of 1,480 vehicles and 337 pedal cycles. The layout at the junction is unsuitable for control by traffic signals, and consideration is being given to the question of the construction of a roundabout after the tramway tracks have been removed.

DOCKS (FACILITIES).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in connection with the highways development scheme, he has considered proposals for the traversing of the docks other than by swing bridges, and urging the desirability of constructing the prospective Thames tunnel so that it goes under the docks; and with what result?

Mr. Burgin: No proposals are made in the Highway Development Survey for Greater London for a tunnel under the docks or for traversing the docks other than by opening bridges.

Mr. Sorensen: Has the right hon. Gentleman had representations made to him by various bodies in London concerning this particular alteration of the original proposal?

Mr. Burgin: No, Sir, not that I am aware of. Opening bridges in the docks could only be avoided by constructing either a high level bridge or a tunnel. A high level bridge would have to be very high, a tunnel would have to be very deep, and both would be very expensive.

WESTERN HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS (CONTRACT).

Sir Murdoch MacDonald: asked the Minister of Transport what is the present position of the contract between the Government and Messrs. David Mac-Brayne for the provision of transport services in the Western Highlands and Islands, which was terminable on 31st October, 1938?

Mr. Burgin: The contract in question expired on 31st October last. Negotiations for a new contract have not yet been concluded, and a supplementary contract was made on 31st October continuing the old contract on the same terms until 31st December, 1938.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the other contract was provisionally arranged without consulting Parliament or the Members concerned in any way?

Mr. Burgin: I cannot answer in regard to the original contract, but a supplementary contract for two months has been entered into on the old terms to enable negotiations for a proper new contract to be concluded. That seems to me to be an essential, commercial, businesslike proposal.

Mr. Maxton: Why has the original contract, which was a long-term contract, been allowed to expire without any consideration for a new one?

Mr. Burgin: That is an assumption which the hon. Gentleman is making. He says, "without any consideration for a new one." Negotiations for the new

contract have been in hand for some time. To enable them to reach a successful conclusion, the old contract has been continued on the same terms for a period of two or three months.

Mr. Maxton: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me why with a contract of this nature it has not been possible to come to a conclusion about the future contract?

Mr. Burgin: A contract to be of real value must be a contract of mutual benefit and satisfaction. It is a contract between Messrs. David MacBrayne for mails, passengers, and goods, and a number of other interests, and the free negotiation of the new contract has been in hand for some time. I am quite confident that when the proposals are submitted to the House for a new contract they will meet with approval.

Mr. Maxton: Why could not it have been done at the right time?

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his very full reply, may I ask whether he can give some indication as to when we are likely to be able to discuss the new contract?

Mr. Burgin: As I have told the House, the supplementary contract continuing the old contract runs until 31st December this year. That means a belief on the part of His Majesty's Government that the new contract will have been negotiated within the interval, and I hope the House will have an opportunity of discussing it at an early date.

Mr. Davidson: Did the Minister's Department have any consultation with interested parties before re-establishing the new contract?

Mr. Burgin: I am not quite sure what the hon. Member means.

DOG KENNEL HILL, EAST DULWICH.

Major Oscar Guest: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has considered for road widening purposes the bottle-neck and curve at the foot of Dog Kennel Hill, East Dulwich, where railway, tramcar, and omnibus converge, and which is a danger spot to the tenants of a large working-class housing estate in the immediate vicinity, to their children and to other users of this carriageway; and with what result?

Mr. Burgin: The responsibility for road improvements rests on the highway authorities concerned. Up to the present I have received no proposals for the improvement of the road in question, but I will make inquiries as to the intentions of the highway authority and communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend.

ROAD AND BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS, DURHAM COUNTY.

Mr. Sexton: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in the interests of road transport requirements in peace and war, he will reconsider the Durham county council scheme for improvements in roads and bridges submitted some time ago to the Ministry?

Mr. Burgin: I have not been able to give approval in principle to the programme as a whole because the county council have not seen their way to undertake to proceed on the basis of grants at the normal rates applicable to the county. I am, however, continuing to deal with individual applications as they are submitted to me by the council.

Mr. Sexton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the roads are totally inadequate in time of peace and certainly so in time of war, and is he further aware that it would increase employment in one of the most distressed areas in the country?

Mr. Burgin: I am aware of the employment position, but I think both the other statements are untrue.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Buchanan: On a point of Order. Ought the right hon. Gentleman to criticise an hon. Member's statement as being untrue?

Mr. Burgin: I hope the hon. Member did not misunderstand me. A matter of opinion was expressed as to the adequacy or inadequacy of roads. That is the view which I characterised as untrue, not any statement made by the hon. Member. I would not dream of making such a statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS.

LAND NATIONALISATION.

Mr. T. Johnston: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call

attention to Land Nationalisation, and move a Resolution.

SAFETY IN MINES.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to Safety in Mines, and move a Resolution.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.

Mr. Batey: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to Workmen's Compensation, and move a Resolution.

EMPLOYMENT OF BOYS IN MINES.

Mr. Sexton: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight I shall call attention to the Employment of Boys in Mines, and move a Resolution.

Oral Answers to Questions — BILL PRESENTED.

CANCER BILL,

"to make further provision for the treatment of cancer, to authorise the Minister of Health to lend money to the National Radium Trust, to prohibit certain advertisements relating to cancer, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Mr. Elliot; supported by Mr. Colville, the Attorney-General, Mr. Bernays, and Mr. Wedderburn; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 38.]

Oral Answers to Questions — HALL-MARKING OF FOREIGN PLATE.

Mr. Higgs: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to exempt foreign plate more than one hundred years old from assay, stamping, and marking.
Under the existing law all imported ornamental foreign plate must be assayed, marked and stamped in the same way as plate that is manufactured in Great Britain, but the Customs Amendment Act, 1842, granted exemption from all marking for all plate manufactured prior to the year 1800. In the process of time the exemptions, instead of applying to plate at in 1842, manufactured 42 years previously, now applies only to plate that has been manufactured 138 years. I think you will agree that this is a stringent regulation, and, obviously, as time goes on this restriction becomes more stringent. The proposed Bill would be


drawn to extend this exemption from hall-marking to all imported foreign plate that is more than 100 years old. It would bring it into line with Section 8 of the Finance Act, 1926, under which Customs duties are not charged on goods more than 100 years old. The Bill would relieve the seller from penalty if he proves that the plate is more than 100 years old at the time of the alleged offence. It would relieve the Customs from their duties under Section 10 of the Revenue Act, 1883, which protects the importer and provides that the importer shall deposit the plate in bond. It shall not he allowed to be delivered home until it is assayed, marked and stamped.
Finally the Bill would repeal Section 6 of the Customs Amendment Act, 1842, which would then be superseded. The House would like to know what support such a Bill would receive. The Bill has the approval of Goldsmiths Hall, who are primarily concerned with legislation from this point of view. The Bill is supported by the British Antique Dealers' Association, who are directly concerned as buyers and sellers of the goods covered by the Bill and who incidentally are a very strong organisation. Amongst their members are all reputable antique dealers in the country. The Bill has the support of the Hall-Marking Advisory Committee, who approved of it in principle as far back as 1934, at a meeting at which all trade organisations were represented. It has the support, last but not least, of the Board of Trade and of the Board of Customs and Excise.
I have the privilege of representing the jewellery district, which is in my division, and I have been asked on several occasions what is the attitude of the manufacturers towards such a Bill. From what I have said it is very obvious that the Bill does not concern them, as in my district they do not manufacture antiques 100 years old. Hall-marking is compulsory in England but it is not compulsory internationally, and the result is that goods may be introduced to-day which would not pass our hall-marking standard 100 years hence; and therefore by the expiration of time this matter does not correct itself. The Bill is bringing us into line with the Finance Act, 1926, to which I have referred. That Act permits the importation of all goods more than 100 years old, with the exception of wines and spirits. In 1842 goods that

were 42 years old could be considered as antiques. To-day they have to be more than 138 years old in order to be so classified. I think it will be agreed that there is an anomaly in the law, and I hope that the House will support that contention. I may be asked, what becomes of plate that importers try to import today? If it does not pass the standard of assay it is then returned to some address otherwise than in this country. I conclude with the statement that I think the House will agree that the Bill is a nonparty Measure.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Higgs, Sir Patrick Hannon, Mr. Crowder, Mr. Grant-Ferris, Mr. Liddall, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Lyons, Sir John Mellor, Sir Smedley Crooke, Mr. H. G. Williams, and Sir Louis Smith.

HALL-MARKING OF FOREIGN PLATE BILL,

"to exempt foreign plate more than one hundred years old from assay, stamping, and marking," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 41.]

DEVELOPMENT OF EXPORT TRADE.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. Sutcliffe: I beg to move,
That, in view of the urgent need to promote our overseas trade and guard against any undue increase in the adverse balance of payments, this House welcomes the recent statements by the President of the Board of Trade, as to the intention of the Government to assist the basic exporting industries, and is of the opinion that particular regard should be had to the desirability of maintaining and increasing trade within the Empire; of using the buying power of this country in the most effective manner possible in the negotiation and revision of trade agreements; of assisting the cotton and other exporting industries to increase their efficiency and to maintain and expand their overseas trade; and of promoting action, where necessary, to overcome the increasing menace of State-aided foreign competition.
Much has, of necessity, been heard in this House during recent weeks about foreign affairs, Defence and other kindred subjects, and all too little has been heard about our trade and industry. Therefore, I want to-day, in the time available to private Members, to direct attention rather to our own industry, and especially to our export trade, on which, after all, our whole future as a great country and the welfare of our people depend. To-day it is only those nations which look ahead and have a determined policy for the future which can hope to compete with the new conditions. The President of the Board of Trade, speaking in this House on 1st November, referred to the new technique of competition with our export trade in the markets of the world, and went on to say:
If we are to maintain our exports in face of the new form of competition there must be some form of unity in the industry which will enable it to direct its exporting power at its strongest wherever we wish it to direct it.
I welcome the assurance which he gave that the Government are fully alive to the danger of the competition that faces us. My right hon. Friend went on to say that the Government were prepared
to give whatever assistance we can to the industries of this country to put themselves in a position to fight, if fight they must."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st November, 1938; col. 181, Vol. 340.]
I was pleased to see, also, that that sentiment was followed up in the Gracious Speech from the Throne, in which it was stated that Ministers would persist in their

efforts to establish favourable conditions for the development of overseas markets. I know that that has given satisfaction. The export trade are assured that the Government are keeping their interests in the forefront of their policy at the present time, but I know, too, that these great industries are most anxious that the Government's intentions should be translated into action as soon as possible. That is the reason why I have moved this Motion, in the hope of getting from the Government some encouraging statement which will give the basic export trades something really tangible on which to base their expectations for the future. New life must be put into the export trade if our position in the world is to be retained and the standard of living of our people maintained or, as we hope, improved.
The seriousness of the situation is shown by the grave deterioration which has taken place in the position of what is, after all, one of our greatest export industries, the cotton trade. I wish during the next few minutes to direct attention to the seriousness of the position in that industry. The value of our exports of cotton manufactures in 1928 was £145,000,000, but in 1937, after a lapse of 10 years, the figure had fallen to only £68,000,000. No doubt the fall was partly due to a decline in values, but only to a small extent. At the same time the volume of cotton piece goods exported fell from 3,866 million square yards to 1,922 million square yards in the same period. The decline mostly took place in the period from 1929 to 1931, but since then little recovery has taken place. In fact, the most alarming feature is that during the first 10 months of this year the exports of cotton manufactures were only two-thirds of what they were during the first 10 months of last year. They were some 1,159 million square yards, as compared with 1,631 million square yards in the first 10 months of 1937. The American side of the spinning industry to-day is working at less than 50 per cent. of its capacity, in fact, it averages between 40 and 50 per cent. from week to week, and at present is nearer to 40 per cent. than 50, and that is, I am assured, the lowest percentage which it has ever experienced.
I do not want to dwell too long on that serious position, but I want to emphasise that this decline in the cotton industry is by no means a local matter. It affects


the whole nation, a point that is sometimes apt to be forgotten. In 1928, for instance, the cotton manufactures were 20 per cent. of the total exports of the country, but this year, so far, the proportion has fallen as low as 11 per cent. A solution of the cotton export problem would go a long way towards improving the export trade of the country as a whole. The cotton trade has a most essential contribution to make to the national balance of trade. The industry imports all its supplies of raw cotton, and, in spite of that, the export of cotton manufactures is still large enough to pay for the whole of those imports and, in addition, to provide a surplus. In 1937 this surplus amounted to £22,000,000, but that is far less than it was 10 years ago, when cotton's contribution to the balance of trade was no less than £89,000,000. That is a decline of £67,000,000. I say without hesitation that the decline in the cotton exporting industry has produced much of the difficulty which we now find in balancing our internal accounts. That sum of £67,000,000 would have been more than sufficient to pay for our whole imports of wheat last year, or sufficient to pay more than five times over for our imports of rubber.
There is another aspect of the matter to which I must refer from the national point of view, and that is the employment position. Assuming that two-thirds of those who are employed in the finishing industry are employed on cotton goods, the total number of people employed has fallen from 536,000 in 1928 to 347,000 in 1938—a difference of 189,000. Many, fortunately, have found work in other districts and in other parts of England, but the number of unemployed in the cotton industry still ranges between 70,000 and 90,000. That is the position, and it is a formidable one. Indeed, it is a most tragic position, despite all that has been done, in trade agreements, for instance. Under several trade agreements, as the President of the Board of Trade informed me the other day, we have improved the position of the cotton industry to some considerable extent. In that connection we particularly welcome the Agreement with the United States of America, which has been very well received in Manchester. As we know, that Agreement was the outcome of a great deal of hard work on the part of the

Board of Trade and its President, and we look forward to some advantage from it, but, of course, the United States tariff has the highest in the whole world, and although the reduction is large, the effective tariff is still high. I am not saying that with any intention of belittling the Agreement, but the tariff does remain high, and it remains to be seen whether the purchasing power of the United States and the attractions of our own goods will be sufficient to surmount it. But this Agreement is one of very great significance and opens up great possibilities for the future, and we welcome it.
In this connection I want to stress the point that cotton ought to receive more consideration in connection with our trade agreements. It has often been said that cotton should come first in all agreements. Much has been done for coal, and we do not complain, because the coal industry was in a very serious position and needed help, but the latest legislation dealing with the coal industry has placed a burden of £750,000 a year on the Lancashire cotton industry alone in respect of coal, and while willing to bear it, they do feel that their own industry should now come first, and should have a greater place in trade agreements than in the past. A more aggressive line on behalf of the cotton industry should be taken in connection with these trade agreements. A lot has been said in Lancashire during the last few months or indeed years—and the feeling seems, unfortunately, to be growing—to the effect that the Government are not particularly interested in the cotton trade.
If the Government could once and for all dispel that idea, it would do a great amount of good, and I hope that idea will be largely dispelled by my hon. Friend the Secretary of the Department of Overseas Trade who, I understand, is going to reply. He represents a seaside resort in that county—at least it used to be a seaside resort, though I rather think the sea has left it. At any rate, it is still a popular place with retired cotton manufacturers, if any are able to retire nowadays which seems somewhat doubtful, and he is therefore in contact with many of the heads of the cotton industry, and we look forward to hearing some constructive suggestions from him. It would be a fine thing if only he could dispel the sort of pessimism which has settled upon Lancashire arising from the feeling that


the Government are not doing sufficient for this trade.
I know that there are many difficulties. We have lost our chief export market in India which, owing to the growth of economic nationalism, has in the past 10 years increased its production of cotton goods by some 2,000 million square yards while we have lost 1,200 million square yards of our exports to India. The trade are anxiously awaiting the outcome of the recent Government negotiations with India. We still import from there more than we did in 1913, whereas our exports to that country are only half what they were before 1914. Much has been said in the North to the effect that we must take a firm hand and force India to reduce her tariffs against our goods. We know, unfortunately, that is not possible, because the matter is now out of our control, but the position must in course of time be considered on a purely commercial basis alone, apart altogether from the political basis or the tariff basis. Surely this discrepancy in what we buy from India and what India buys from us has become so enormous that more consideration should be shown for our manufactured goods. The difficulties can only be overcome by negotiation, by persistence on the lines of the recent negotiations, of which we are still waiting to hear the result, but we do use such large quantities of raw material that we are in a position to compel attention to the demands for fairer treatment for our exports of manufactured goods of all kinds, and I think some scheme could be evolved.
Take the position of the Colonies. I think it is true to say that if the quota regulation policy on foreign imports going to the Colonies had not been adopted, our markets would have been virtually extinct there, and so we welcome that policy, but I am rather afraid that in the course of time we shall lose more and more of our Colonial trade, unless the greatest care is taken to foster it. Recent figures tend to show that that time is approaching. Many Colonies are undeveloped on account of a lack of capital, and the capital for development can only come from industry or from the Government. What can we do? I urge the Government to call a conference with the Colonies to go into the details of this great question of Colonial trade and development before it is too late.

It is possible to do it now, but the time will come when it will be too late. The Government should interest themselves more in the development of our supplies of essential raw materials from our Colonial Empire. If we purchase their natural products surely they should provide a favourable market for us, and especially for our chief exporting industry, that of textiles. Take the sugar industry as an example. The present position of the West Indian Colonies is due to the fact that in the past sufficient attention has not been paid to those Colonies in connection with the development of the sugar industry. We have given far less attention to that market than the Americans gave in the case of Porto Rico, for example, with the result that our exports to those Colonies have fallen far short of possibilities—far short of the American exports to Porto Rico. I maintain that there is infinite scope for planning, and it is planning that we must have, the planning and the development of the Colonial Empire both in their interests and our own. I most strongly urge this idea of a conference upon the Government for consideration.
There are one or two other matters to which I wish to refer shortly while on the subject of Colonies, and one is the Congo Basin Treaty, because a great deal of propaganda is going on in Lancashire in favour of our abrogating that Treaty. No doubt the Treaty is operating very unfairly, and the situation is in many ways unsatisfactory, but the legal position has been stated in this House by the Law Officers of the Crown and we know that the Treaty cannot be abrogated unless all nations who are parties to it agree. But I do urge that the Government should take advantage of every opportunity which arises to alter the present situation to make it more helpful to our own industry. Indeed, I hope they will go further and create the opportunity for such a course.
There is much talk about our Colonial position, and it will come much more to the fore during the next few months, and conferences upon it will probably be held. That may provide an opportunity to do something about the Congo Basin Treaty. I would urge that that possibility be kept in view and that if the opportunity should arise, or if there should be any chance of making the opportunity, the Government should take


it. In regard to the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause many statements are being circulated. We do not want abolition, as some people suggest, it is out of date and its conditions are evaded. It now operates unfairly to our export trade. What is needed is a fresh interpretation of the principle of no favouritism.
Now a word about the enabling Bill, which has been talked about for just over two years. Lancashire as a whole certainly wants the Bill and we hope that too much further delay will not take place in the production of the Bill. It is not the Government's fault, but now that we have reached agreement with nearly everybody and that we are, so to speak, at the last fence and as the Bill is badly needed, speed is essential, since so much time has been lost. People cannot go ahead with contracts, and in some directions trade is held up because people are uncertain whether the Bill will be brought forward. I suggest that it should be brought forward during the present Session and as early as possible, and that too much consideration should not be given, after two years, to the people who are opposing it. We have got nearly unanimous consent. I believe the Government have whittled down the original plan and that agreement has almost been reached. The time has come to pay less attention to anybody who tries further to stop its progress.
An illustration was given to me last week to show how the Bill would operate and the necessity for its being brought forward as early as possible. Several Lancashire firms made contracts with Germany for cotton yarn and the contracts provided for a profit of one penny per pound. Some other Lancashire firms came along, after the contract had been in operation for a short time and entirely because of their internal price-cutting on a declining trade, those contracts have resulted not in a profit of one penny per pound but in a loss of one farthing per pound. You cannot do business on those lines. Such under cutting by other firms would be prevented by the enabling Bill. I want the House to note especially that there was no question whatever of foreign competition, but that it was entirely a matter of undercutting by other Lancashire firms.
My hon. Friend the senior Member for Oldham (Mr. Hamilton Kerr) is to follow

me and I believe that he will also deal to some extent with the cotton industry. I was rather surprised to see the Amendment which has been put down by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) and two of his supporters, Lancashire Members, because it seems to suggest that the Government should take over the export trade. It would be a pity if this Debate were drawn off on that rather complicated issue and that it should serve perhaps not quite so useful a purpose as if we had been able to have more unity.
The export industry of this country as a whole has grown up in a casual way. Perhaps there has been too much casualness about it in the past, but it is essential now to have a planned policy regarding the whole of our export trade if we are to hold that trade. The Government are responsible for the well-being of the State. I feel that the industry and the people of the country are in the mood for some help from the Government, and I believe that they would welcome more active interest by the Government. The mood of the people is tending in that direction, so serious is the whole range of foreign competition becoming. The Government should not wait for industry to approach them, but should rather approach industry and say: "What can we do to help?" Government Departments know the state of trade frequently when the figures are received. I would recommend that officials should go to some of our exporting industries and say: "We have just seen the figures and we are concerned about this lack of export trade. Why are the figures down so much? Can we do anything to help you to get back your vanishing markets?" Traders would be tremendously encouraged and would feel that the Government were really behind them. We are facing developments which are operating unfairly against us and will continue to do so more unfavourably as time goes on. There is the ever-growing menace of State-aided competition. Are we going to do anything about it? How are we going to combat it? Have we any plans for dealing with this increasing menace? Perhaps when the right hon. Gentleman replies he will 'be able to tell us.
We need a centralised effort. The effort of the other nations is centralised and we have to put in hand similar efforts if we


are to face them successfully. Such an effort will require close co-operation with the Government. Traders must be told what to do and how to meet the new situation. We cannot live completely decentralised as we have done up to now, and I believe that everyone realises this. The suggestion that I am leading up to is that, as this form of competition is quite new, a committee should be set up immediately to represent all the basic exporting industries—not merely the cotton industry—with, say, two representatives from each large industry. It should be a committee of men experienced in business and industry and its task should be to investigate the types of this foreign competition and the methods employed and to propose the alterations which we should make to meet it. It is a vital necessity that we should find out what is the present position and what should be done about it. The committee should be definitely instructed to report in three months. It should not be one of those committees which go on for months and months. After it had reported we should get on and do something on the lines it suggested. I am convinced that only in such a way can our export trade be saved and be enabled to meet the ever-growing competition in a changing world.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. Hamilton Kerr: I beg to second the Motion.
I am certain that the House will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Royton (Mr. Sutcliffe) for having utilised his good fortune in the Ballot to bring before us the question of the export trade. As he said in his speech, the time has now come to make a thorough survey of our export markets. In this country since the War two Englands seem to have grown up. In the safe shelter of the tariff wall, our home industries enjoy relative security, high wages and an expanding market and they enjoy the benefit of the policy of cheap money. Many industries enjoy amenities like holidays with pay. On the other hand, the exporting industries suffer the heat and frost of untempered foreign competition. They suffer not only from foreign efforts to undermine them with subsidies, but from internal troubles like price-cutting, unemployment and all the distress which depression brings.
Our exporters look out to-day on a very different world from that surveyed by their fathers and grandfathers in the nineteenth century. There appear to be two blocs in the world. The first I might call the Liberal economic bloc, the bloc of the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause. Those within that bloc try as much as possible to enter any breach made in the tariff walls. There is, on the other hand, another bloc which I might call the authoritarian bloc. In that bloc, we have to recognise, politics and economics are as inseparably connected as Siamese twins. In fact, in this bloc every bag of wheat and every keg of oil sold are as much an instrument of power politics as are aeroplanes and tanks. That is a state of affairs which, in this country, we cannot afford to neglect. Our export industries are faced with other complications. The first is the varying price-level of raw materials. The livelihood of the Kansas farmer, and the Malaya rubber companies are of vital interest to our producers. That is why anxious eyes are so often fixed on the ticker in Wall Street, America being one of the largest purchasers and users of raw materials.
The second complicating factor is that of the economic nationalism, which is transforming the whole world, as far as I can see, into a series of economic blockhouses. The garrisons in these blockhouses improve their defences or lower them according to the state of the world on the other side of the stockade. If the war whoops of the dictators are more or less menacing, they deepen their ditches or heighten their barricades. But if things are more or less quiet, the garrisons venture out under armed escort. This tendency to economic nationalism brings in its train other equally vicious tendencies, including the tendency to subsidise industry. That is a most unhealthy tendency but one which we cannot afford to neglect, or not to face. The second tendency is that of countries to start secondary industries whereas formerly they were producing only primary commodities.
Those are some of the uncertain factors which face our traders. There is another new factor in twentieth century trade which is quite different from any in nineteenth century trade. The science of advertising has brought a new competition into marketing. Nations are not only competing nowadays in the type,


variety and range of goods they sell, but in the relative attractiveness of the parcels in which the goods are wrapped and even of the labels on the parcels. What are we to do about this? I believe that our marketing machinery is now out-of-date to a certain extent. The last century was the day of the great merchant houses like Jardine, Mathieson and Company, of Shanghai, and Rani, of Bombay. The merchant in his office had his personal contacts. He knew the whims and prejudices of the people with whom he dealt and he could pass on first-hand information to those directly interested in the trade. Nowadays, I believe, certain factors have driven the merchant more and more out of business. The first is the tendency to try to make trade a one-way affair. The merchant in the old days, when trade was a two-way affair, both bought and sold. Likewise, I believe, the big firms nowadays prefer to have their own representatives in certain countries, and to deal direct with them. The small trader cannot afford to have his own personal representative, and he has to go to an agent. But in that agent's office his name on the agent's file is but one in a list of many, and I do not believe that his business can receive that personal attention which is the first requisite for successful trading. Therefore, I should like to make a suggestion.
As I see British trade nowadays, British exporters resemble a number of individual skirmishers acting on their own account without orders from headquarters. Would it not be possible in some way, as my hon. friend suggested, to mobilise these individual skirmishers into an efficient and highly knit army? Would it not be possible to divide world markets into sectors? All the firms directly interested in trading in those sectors would agree to pool their marketing resources—merchants, bankers, shippers—in one industry. It might, if you like, be called a marketing company. This may sound revolutionary to our ears in this country, but we have an example of the success of great marketing companies in the great Japanese merchant firms of Mitsui and Mitsubishi. Such firms have been largely successful in this enterprise because they combine all the functions of producing, merchanting and marketing.
I should also like to see His Majesty's Government send instructions to all His

Majesty's representatives overseas to help, on every possible occasion, the cause of the British trader. I have often heard traders complain, I do not know with what justification, that British diplomacy is still too much an affair of the top hat and the visiting card, and that trade is left to the consul. I myself have seen the success with which American and, in particular, German Ambassadors have interfered on behalf of their nationals and obtained contracts. Then there is a sphere in which we can act with direct influence. I refer to the Colonial Empire. I believe that something like £1,000,000 is spent annually by the Colonial Development Fund. The fund spreads that money over a variety of objects, worthy in themselves, but nevertheless small and scattered. Would it not be possible each year to concentrate that £1,000,000 on a specific objective in a specific part of the Colonial Empire? This would at least allow us to carry on developments on a big scale, and the object of those developments would be to increase the purchasing power of the British Empire, with a view both to productiveness and to consumption.
I wish that a great many hon. Members wish to intervene, and I will hasten to my conclusion. I cannot conclude without a word on cotton. My hon. Friend gave figures which I think must impress us all. The cotton trade is in a terrible plight. I have in my possession a postcard called "Smoky Oldham." It dates from the days when the whole neighbourhood of Oldham smoked with prosperity like a giant kiln. Nowadays many of the mills pictured on that postcard do not show their lights of a winter evening far across the Yorkshire moors, for sales notices cover their walls. Lancashire has to face a very formidable opponent in Japan, and I believe there are certain factors of Japanese competition which will not change in the immediate future, and of which we shall have to take very active account. The first is that the Japanese exporter exports with a depreciated currency. In the second place, the labour force in Japan is growing by something like 300,000 every year. Every year the number of girls who come from the rice fields to find work in the Osaka factories is increasing. That means that wages will continue at a low level. Lastly, Japan, in spite of all her modern technique of salesmanship, is really in


a transition stage from the conditions of the nineteenth century. There are no strong trade unions to regulate conditions and hours of labour. These are factors which, as far as I can see, are not likely to change in Japan in the near future.
It seems to me that Lancashire must tighten all its muscles and use every available resource to meet so formidable an opponent. Where can it be done? In China? According to the official spokesmen of the Japanese Foreign Office, no war exists in China. If I might borrow the apt phrase of my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), "the Celestial regions are lapped in peace." That peace means that no fewer than a million men are under arms in China, that the Japanese fleet is blockading the approaches to China, and that the great artery of China has been closed to French, English and American traffic. Japan, in fact, is like a giant boa constrictor, slowly strangling China. I was very glad to learn from a reply to a question that a new road has been built from Burma into China, and that a railway is contemplated. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how those preparations are being pressed forward. We cannot accept the refusal of the Japanese Government to allow us to trade with China.
Then there is the question of India, on which my hon. Friend touched. India at the present moment levies a crushing tariff on Lancashire cotton goods. India believes that she can flirt with two admirers, Japan and Lancashire, but I think a word of warning would not come amiss to our Indian friends. Japan will develop every single raw material that she can find in China, on her own doorstep, where no hostile fleet can intercept vital supplies. One of those raw materials will be cotton, and the day will come when India will find that Japan will no longer require to buy cotton from her. She will be left like the improvident virgin with no oil in her lamp before a closed door. India might well recognise that Lancashire has made great efforts to buy more and more cotton from her. We have tried to adapt our machinery for this purpose; we are customers of India; and trade goes both ways. India enjoys benefits in our Colonial markets, and I think the tariffs she levies on Lancashire cotton goods at

the present moment bear absolutely no relation to Indian production costs.

Sir Stanley Reed: Would my hon. Friend tell the House what that tariff is?

Mr. Kerr: It is between 20 and 25 per cent. ad valorem. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will tell us how far the negotiations in that regard have proceeded.
There is another market, the market of South America. As far as I know, Brazil is the only country in South America which has a cotton manufacture of its own. I was looking at the figures of Japanese trade with South America, and I noticed that it is a one-way trade. Japan buys hardly any beef, wheat or coffee from South America. If the South American nations insisted on reciprocity, Japan would be very hard put to it. Perhaps a chance may exist of developing our interests in the South American market. Then I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to tell us that the disgraceful operations of the Cocoa Board, which recently upset the whole economy of Nigeria, have now been successfully brought to a conclusion. Hon. Members will recollect that, owing to the effort that was made by the cocoa group in this country to force certain prices on the natives, a complete boycott of Lancashire cotton goods was initiated.
One last idea, to which reference was made by my hon. Friend in dealing with the question of markets. I believe there is nothing like a direct appeal to the eye. I would like to see fashion centres for Lancashire cotton goods in Manchester and in London. The great Signor Mussolini once confessed that no power in the world, not even the guillotine, could run counter to fashion. If the Dictator of Italy, the lord of a thousand black-shirt legions, bows before the power of the latest model from Paris, we should be foolish to ignore his advice. I believe that such centres could do a great deal, not only in England but in other parts of the world, to tempt the housewife to refurnish herself with nice new spring materials in the latest fashion. This would bring Lancashire on to the map.
Lancashire does not come with a begging bowl in her hand to Whitehall; she expects help as a valuable partner in the whole national economy. Lancashire's prosperity is England's health; Lancashire's poverty and depression is


England's weakness. Lancashire plays an integral part in the export trade which is the subject of this Motion, and I think no hon. Member can doubt that the export trade is the true destiny of this country. We laid the foundations of our prosperity in the last century, when our goods and our capital flowed to every market from China to South America. Now things have changed. The British tramp steamer, described by Conrad and Kipling, no longer ploughs a steady seven knots, unchallenged by foreign competitors, in every sea. It has competitors—subsidised competitors—on every sea nowadays. But we still have immense resources. We have the power to produce first-class goods; we have the skill of our people; we have our great capital resources. The only thing, I think, that we sometimes lack is imagination. If we had a little more imagination in the marketing of our goods, there is nothing that we could not do. If we could sometimes combine the American gift for salesmanship with British craftsmanship, the rest of the world might shut up shop for a hundred years.

4.57 P.m.

Mr. Silverman: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
this House regrets the failure of His Majesty's Government to recognise, in the light of modern conditions, the imperative need for creating trading organisations on national lines, including export boards, in order to expand the basic British exports such as coal and cotton.
I think that the whole House, whatever they may think of the terms of the Motion, will be grateful to the hon. Members for having chosen this subject for debate to-day, and also, may I say, for the way in which they have put their case. If I may say so without offence to the hon. Member who seconded the Motion, I think that, whatever we may think of the contents of his parcel, his speech was an example of wrapping up and labelling which might well commend it to those to whom it was displayed.
I was a little disappointed by the references made to the Amendment by the Mover of the Motion. He seemed rather to deprecate it, to think it was a pity that the Amendment had been put down, because in his view it tended to distract

the attention of the House from the more important subjects that he wished to discuss. Had he really thought that, one could have understood his objection, but I am tempted to think that he made the objection purely out of respect for the exigencies of party political requirements rather than on its own merits. When I listened to his most interesting speech, and to the equally interesting speech of the Seconder, I found phrases which seemed to show that there is really no reason why the hon. Member should not accept the Amendment. He said it was necessary for the Government to approach industry, without waiting for industry to approach the Government, in regard to its policy when difficult times and conditions in the export trade develop. He said that traders should be told by the Government what to do, and that it was necessary to have a central committee which could coordinate the trading activities of the various competing institutions in a particular export trade, so that they could act unitedly—I think he said, as a unit. If that be so, it would be really interesting to know to what exactly he objected in an Amendment that asks for the creation of trading organisations on national lines. There might possibly be some difference as to the details, as to the method of organising such an institution; but it does not seem from the hon. Member's speech that we really differ as to the necessity of having some kind of national organisation to put an end to the haphazard, casual method that was honoured in the past as "the rights of individual enterprise" and "free competition in the markets of the world."
When I came to listen to the speech of the hon. Member who seconded the Motion, I almost decided that it was unnecessary for me to make a speech at all, apart from formally moving my Amendment. He wanted, in the first place, a rigorous survey by the Government of the requirements of the export trade. I am all for it; but how are the Government to organise and pursue their rigorous survey except by having some kind of central committee, some kind of trading organisation, some kind of unifying authority, such as is put forward in the Amendment? He said it was quite wrong that individual enterprises should go on conducting their activities like individual skirmishers. That is what hon. Members on that side of the House now think of


free competition. They are all against it. They want those people to be regarded as individual skirmishers, who ought to be—in the next phrase of the hon. Member—"mobilised by the Government." You cannot have an army, industrial or of any other kind, based on free competition. It seems clear, from the two speeches we have heard so far, that those days are dead when individual firms and individual institutions could pursue their own individual trading policy, at home and abroad, without regard to the effects that their policy, or the lack of it, might have on the industry as a whole, and on the fate of the nation as a whole. So far, so good. I am still hoping that at 7.30 the hon. Member may find himself in a position, so far from deprecating the Amendment, to accept it. In that case, we might have a Motion which would represent the practically unanimous opinion of the House, without any Division in the Lobbies, calling on the Government to do what it would seem everybody wants them to do.
There is another thing I would like to say before leaving that aspect of the matter. It seems—and we ought to recognise it—that we have started our journey on the road back. The hon. Member who seconded the Motion had a great deal to say about economic nationalism. I am entirely with him. I was with him for a great deal of his speech. Economic nationalism is a thing to be deplored. I entirely agree that if ever we can bring about a situation where primitive tribalism, either in economics or any other field of human activity, can be done away with, we shall have made a long step towards a better, happier, and saner world. But would the hon. Member say that the Government of which he is still a supporter, apparently, is quite guiltless in this matter of economic nationalism? Memories may be short, but there was an Ottawa Conference at one time; and when people now praise the Anglo-American Agreement—and I think they are entitled to praise it, at any rate in its intention, its outlook and its approach to things; what its practical value may be we must wait to see—let us not forget that it is a step which the Government have taken along the road by which they hope to retrieve some of the effects of the mistaken policy upon which they embarked seven years ago.
There is another respect in which we are on the road back. Both hon. Gentlemen had something to say about foreign and imperial competition in the cotton trade. There is no doubt that, at any rate, some part—we need not stop to discuss how much—of the contraction of the cotton industry is due to the competition that comes from Japan, China and India. Hon. Members on the other side now want to limit that competition, to restrain it, and to escape from it. Let us not wholly forget how it began. The cotton industry in China, Japan and India was created by the forbears of those employers in the cotton industry to-day who are seeking to escape from the misdeeds of their forbears in the not very distant past. The cotton industry in these countries was created in order that industrialists in the late nineteenth century should be able to escape from the British Factory Laws. Those industrialists exported machines, labour and capital, in order to create the competing industries which now prevent them from exporting cotton goods. In these questions, after all, we get to a point at which the two main problems of our time meet, and are seen to be, as it were, the obverse sides of one another. On the one side there is the problem of poverty, and on the other side the problem of work.
Hon. Members talk about the contraction in the cotton industry. Some of us see that contraction not merely in terms of the number of millions of yards of cloth exported, but in terms of human lives. If the cotton industry in Lancashire dies, the Lancashire people die with it, unless some substitute for that industry can be found. The hon. Member talked about figures in the last ten years, and showed to what an enormous degree the cotton exporting industry had contracted in that time. I have in front of me the report of the medical officer of health for the town of Nelson, for the year 1937. I take the same ten years as the hon. Member took—1928 to 1937. In the first of those years, the excess of deaths over births was 32; in the second, it was 126; in the third, 1930, when a Labour Government had done something to diminish the consequences of stress in the area, 14; in 1931, it was back to 100; in 1932, it was 70; 1933, 142; 1934, 131; 1935, 107; 1936, 139; 1937, 165. Those are just the years which the hon. Member


rightly told the House had seen the steepest decline in the cotton trade in Lancashire.
It has to be be remembered that, whereas the employers in that industry invest a good deal of capital, there is an industrial population that invest in it their very lives; and that any mismanagement, any inadequacy of policy, any failure of the nation as a whole to support it, is reflected in a decline in the industry, and also in the deepening degradation of human life and in a decline in human life itself. It is agreed, apparently, that there must be some kind of centralisation, some kind of organisation. Let me refer to the cotton trade from that point of view. Will it be realised that in Lancashire to-day there are no fewer than 2,000 competing producing firms? I am not referring at all to merchant firms; there are merchant firms on top of that. What happened? Here is the opinion of the Joint Committee of the Cotton Trade Organisation:
The present system of free competition, under the conditions which have obtained in the cotton industry for many years, has certainly not made for efficiency. Too often, orders go to the firm with the biggest overdraft, or the firm which is hardest put to it to meet the next week's wages bill. Prices are depressed to a level at which even the most efficient cannot make profits or provide adequately for the upkeep of their plant. If this condition continues, the industry must become inefficient and lose still more trade.
How long is the industry to wait for Governmental insistence that it shall reorganise? It is obvious that there must be reorganisation. It is clear that almost everybody in the cotton trade wants reorganisation. Are the Government really going to wait until the last diehard in the industry agrees to come in; or what proportion of this disagreement will they be content to coerce? Is it 1 per cent., or 5 per cent.? Surely the time must come when the Government will say, "There is substantial agreement, and those recalcitrants must be compelled to come in." What we say to the right hon. Gentleman, from both sides of the House, as I understand it, is that there is substantial agreement now. While we wait, the people in the constituency that I have the honour to represent in this House are not merely starving, but dying; and I do not suppose that the figures I have given are peculiar to that town.
When the Government make up their minds to see to it that organisation takes the place of anarchy in the cotton industry, may we suggest that they should remember that it may possibly have the effect of excluding for all time from the cotton industry some portion of those people who have themselves, like their parents and grandparents, always depended on that industry? It will not be quite enough to make a smaller industry, efficiently run, efficiently organised, competent to take its place in the markets of the world, getting a fairer and better share of those markets than it is getting in its present anarchical state, if, as a result, you are depriving for ever some portion of Lancashire's population of its only means of livelihood.
If the Government make up their minds when the time comes that it must be organised on a rationalised basis, which means a smaller number of firms, and possibly a smaller number of workers, they must not forget that they will incur responsibilities to those whom they exclude who have nothing but their labour and their skill to rely upon for means of livelihood. It must be clear that what is good for the cotton industry is good for other industries, too. If you are to have economic planning in that industry, the reasons which compel you to have it will apply to other industries likewise. I am not going to say anything about the coal industry, which has very eloquent and able advocates in this House, and who, I am sure, will not neglect their opportunities. They have never neglected them before, and there is no reason to think that they will neglect them now. Cotton, perhaps, does not get quite so frequent an advertisement in this House, and no one, I think, will complain that we are taking our opportunity this afternoon.
There is one matter with which I will not neglect to deal. Its relevancy is not quite as close as some of the other matters with which I have dealt, but I have frequently, as have other hon. Members from Lancashire, raised in this House in all kinds of ways the problem of the organisation of the cotton industry which results in the starvation of the under employed weaver. I need not describe the problem again, or how it comes about. In short, he is being employed for 48 hours, a full working week, in the


weaving shed and, owing to the system, by which the cotton operative is paid, goes home at the end of the week with the reward of only one or two of the working looms out of the four which he must tend. He goes home with 10s., 12s., or, if he is lucky, 15s. at the end of a 48-hour week without any right to Unemployment Benefit, because he is technically employed, and without any right to relief from the public assistance committees, because that would be to subsidise wages out of the Poor Law. We have raised this question with the Minister of Labour time after time. Apparently, he is at the end of his tether. He does not know what to do, and cannot find a remedy or a way out. He talks vaguely now about it being due not to any fault in social legislation, but to the structure of the cotton industry itself. If that be true, then the Board of Trade must take a hand and see if it cannot do something when it comes forward with its proposal for reorganising and reconstructing the cotton industry, which so far it has been unable to do for itself. It should do something to bring to an end once and for all what is rapidly becoming a public scandal.
Ail this need for centralised planning and co-operative effort is not limited to the cotton industry. I was told a story this afternoon which, I think, ought to be told here, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman, when he comes to reply, will tell us something about the matter. There are, apparently, many dying industries in this country. Cotton is not the only one; there are the heavy industries. There is what is described by those who best know it, as a dying industry—the herring industry. The boats are able to get from the sea almost unlimited quantities of herring but they are unable to sell it. In the West Indies there is a population that is unable to get food, but which is unable to produce in large quantities things which, in this country, are not so easily obtained. A proposal, I understand, was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) many months ago whereby the West Indies should take annually 100,000 barrels of herring and should send in return £100,000 worth of citrus fruits of which the Colonial Marketing Board undertook to dispose. That would be an admirable thing to do. It is a perfectly feasible scheme, but nothing seems to

have been heard of it at all, possibly because we have not a national export board to deal with that kind of problem. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman could tell us what became of that proposal when he comes to reply. That was intended merely as an aside, and, I hope, not an irrelevant one.
It seems that when one reviews the question as a whole the Government have not yet begun to realise the new conditions in the world market with which they are faced, or what united national effort is necessary if we are to compete with the new methods elsewhere of which we are all aware. The Government go on saying that they intend to do this or that, that some day they will help, and that, if there is sufficient agreement in industry, they will do something to give effect to that agreement, and in the meantime, all over the world, the subsidised exports of other countries are displacing our goods from all the markets of the world, including the markets of our own Empire. When are the Government going to realise that if they intend to compete with that kind of modern trading, they must have equal powers. They must be able to organise industry in this country in such a way as will enable it to use the vast purchasing power of the country—because we are still the largest importing country, I think, in the world—in order to influence and facilitate our own export basic trades. They have to learn to approach these questions not merely with a new vigour, but with a new outlook if they are to do justice to the problems that exist.
I hope that they will not forget among their other investigations the question of improving the purchasing power of the people of our own country. There is a vast margin, an almost fantastic margin, between the cost of production and the retail price of our products. When we relate this question to the low purchasing power of the working classes of the country, especially of the unemployed, and to the low purchasing power of other peoples in the world, it is obvious that one of the ways of relieving some of the distresses in the export trade would be by making effective the demands of consumers in the market that is upon our own doorstep. I hope that that will not be forgotten, and also that some day we may be able to break down completely the economic


barriers between nations. We shall not be able to do it until we are organised in such a way as to compete with others.
Even those who were in theory out and out protectionists always said that one of the reasons why they wanted a tariff was in order to have something with which to bargain when it came to negotiating with others. I do not think that they have used that bargaining power very well during the seven years that they have provided themselves with that weapon. [Interruption.] Yes, no doubt it will be necessary, in order to talk on equal terms with those totalitarian States which are pursuing a line of economic policy which is throttling us, to put ourselves in a position to be able to bargain with them. Let it not be forgotten that this striving of people for foreign markets is inevitably one of the most prolific causes, if indeed it is not, in an ultimate sense, the only cause of war. One would like to see the Government taking the initiative. We know it is difficult and that long preparation may be necessary, but the more difficult it is, the more necessary it is that it should be tackled early. The longer it takes to do, the more reason why you should begin early.
We would like to see the Government take the initiative in calling together some kind of world economic conference which would consider the making available to all the nations of the world, on fair conditions, the raw materials which all need, and the methods whereby these economic barriers might be pulled down, and economic nationalism, and economic imperialism, too, swept away. This should be done so that we could have a world in which, at home, people could work together in comradeship producing the wealth of the world, and the nations in the world, too, could work side by side, co-operating with one another in some kind of world economy, instead of pursuing the anarchic, cut-throat competition which now leaves the nations of the world unable to enjoy the fruits of modern science, and always with the impending fear of war looming on a not distant horizon. These economic questions are fundamental, and I suggest that the Government should take immediate steps to see what kind of problem they really have to face, in order that they may put themselves on equal terms with those other

nations to which reference has been made, so as to enable them some day to go in for the policy of the longer view with the object of getting, in the place of a world dominated by the continual fear of poverty and war, a world where human effort is able to co-operate so that it can consume the goods which it produces and lead mankind into happier fields.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Burke: I beg to second the Amendment.
This Debate on the export trades is really another Debate on the distressed areas. I hope the Mover and Seconder of the Motion will accept my apologies if I do not reply to what they have said, but I do not desire to take up too much time. I would, however, draw attention to the fact that the Mover of the Motion said that in Lancashire there was a great deal of satisfaction with the Anglo-American Treaty. He must have been mixing in circles entirely different from those in which I have been moving. I have met responsible people on both sides, and at the most they adopt a very cautious attitude in regard to this treaty. It touches only a very small amount of the Lancashire cotton trade. The tariff reductions are very small, and, so far as the worst part of the cotton trade is concerned, namely, those who are making the cheaper kind of goods, as in Burnley, the treaty does not affect us one bit.

Mr. Sutcliffe: I carefully went on to say that it would require time to see how it would turn out, and I was cautious in regard to any figures as to results.

Mr. Burke: I am pleased to hear that statement. I admit that the action taken by the Government is a step in the right direction, but, as far as Lancashire is concerned, the effect will be negligible. It is as well to remember that the trade we do with America amounts to £14,000,000, against the £31,000,000 of goods that they take from us, although their population is three times the size of ours. That does not show very great bargaining power in our favour. With regard to the Congo Basin Treaty, the hon. Member said that in many ways it was unsatisfactory. That is an extraordinarily mild way to describe the situation. As far as Lancashire is concerned, in every way it is entirely unsatisfactory. That is how Lancashire regards it.
This is really a Debate on the distressed areas again, because the exporting trades are the trades that have caused the distressed areas. When we criticise the Government for not doing anything for the distressed areas, we are criticising them for not doing anything for the export trades. The cotton trade has been neglected, and the centre of gravity in our industrial life has shifted. The same thing has happened in regard to our external trade. There is no balance between the external trade and the home trade, with the result that our whole economic structure has been thrown out of gear. That means that, as far as the cotton trade is concerned, for years it has been going down. I do not know what happened in this House before I came here in 1935, but since I have been here I have tried to draw the attention of the Government to the parlous condition of the cotton industry, as much as I could, but with no tangible results. Not only has the matter been brought to the attention of the Government repeatedly, but various Commissions—there was one in 1924 and another in 1929—have drawn attention to it. We have only to look at the figures. I have looked at them ad nauseam. Our export trade before the War was 800,000 million square yards of cloth, and it is now down to 200,000 million, and the position is growing steadily worse. It has gone worse in the last month compared with the previous month, and the position this year is worse than last year.

Mr. Radford: The hon. Member is wrong. Instead of 800,000 millions, he should have said 8,000 millions, and instead of 200,000 millions he should have said 2,000 millions.

Mr. Burke: We are not particular about 100,000 or so. We have lost so much that it does not matter. What it means so far as my constituency is concerned is that, while the unemployment rate throughout the country averages 13 per cent., the unemployment rate in Burnley, Nelson and other places is between 30 and 40 per cent. To-day, in regard to the number of looms and the number of firms, we are down to the position of 1,882. Why is no effective action being taken by the Government to prevent this state of affairs? If hon. Members will look at the Trade and Navigation Returns, on page 180, they will see that in regard to our markets in Ireland, West

Africa, South Africa, British East Africa, in fact in every market in the world as well as in the Empire, without exception, month after month, our position has gone steadily down. It was the cotton trade along with our Mercantile Marine that placed this country where it is at the present time as a trading nation, and we are entitled to get more consideration than we have had from the Government, in view of the fact that we have been rapidly put out of the markets of the world.
To-day, the position presents an even worse feature, because the economic conditions of the world are different from what they used to be. Competition before was bad enough, but at the present time our individual firms in Lancashire have to compete against competitiors who are backed up by all the strength of their Governments, depreciated currencies and all kinds of selling organisations. That is a position which the people in Lancashire cannot meet, and it requires Government assistance. First of all, it requires that the organisation shall be made into a unit. The Government tell us that they have asked the cotton trade to come to an agreement among themselves. You will never get complete agreement between Lancashire people, but you have had a measure of agreement such as you have never had before, and a measure of agreement which justified the Government in coming forward and presenting a Bill which would have put the industry in a position to compete more successfully.
Either the Government have to say that this export industry shall be kept alive and maintained, or, alternatively, if they are going to have any balance between our exports and our home markets, they must establish new export industries, and those new export industries must be put in these neglected areas. As far as my own constituency is concerned, the Government have done absolutely nothing in that direction. There will have to be a more definite and clearer indication of a comprehensive scheme. No piecemeal tinkering with the matter will deal with an industry like the cotton industry, which has sunk to half its former proportions in regard to the employment of people and the employment of machinery. Since 1931 the returns show that there has been an adverse balance of trade between the two sides amounting to £150,000,000. In one year only, 1935, was there a favourable balance of trade.
At the present time it is likely that the Government's policy will disturb the balance of trade even more. We are concentrating on an agricultural policy which keeps out imports, a rearmament policy which expands the home market and a policy of creating new light industries, and ignoring the old exporting industries. Therefore, the balance will be thrown out more and more. We as a great exporting country cannot afford this. We are the greatest purveyor of shipping and financial services, which depend on the export trades and depend upon an increased volume, not only of British but of world trade. While profits in the home market are bringing people into that market, it is not right that the Government should allow the drift to go on haphazardly at the individual will of employers, and neglect completely the restoration of our export markets. Last year 541 factories were established in this country, and of that number only 14 were connected with the export industries. That is symptomatic of the decline in our export trade and of the unbalanced, unregulated growth of the home trade at its expense.
Two things are necessary: (1) a reorganisation of the industry, because in these days when political considerations in other countries outweigh and dominate commercial and economic considerations, it is impossible for individual units to meet the situation; (2) it is necessary that the Government should take a more lively and more persistent interest in the position of the Lancashire cotton trade, when it is negotiating trade agreements. I believe that we have 21 agreements in operation, and of those agreements there are only three that give us a favourable balance of trade. I suggest to the Government that they have tremendous power and should be able to do better for our exporting industries than they have done. The bargaining power that this country has as a great consuming nation is sufficient to enable the Government to give us better results. Our imports last year were 18 per cent. of the whole world trade. That is sufficient to enable the Government to deal more adequately than they have with Lancashire under trade agreements.
I would like the Minister to tell us what is happening in regard to the Indian Agreement. Negotiations have been

going on for a long time, and Lancashire has been waiting to hear the result. All the time—and it has been going on for years—our imports from India have been going up. In rice, oil, hides, skins and raw cotton we have been taking steadily more and more from India, and they have been taking less and less from us. In 1928, we sent 354,000,000 square yards of cloth, but the figure has now dropped to 77,000,000 square yards. That is not all. We have to put against the drop from 354,000,000 to 77,000,000, the tremendous rise in the Japanese trade with India, which has risen from 89,000,000 square yards to 134,000,000 square yards in the same period. Somehow or other, by better organisation and better methods, Japan buying raw cotton from India is able to get that raw cotton manufactured at home and to sell the finished cloth in India as cheaply as the Indians themselves can do it. Moreover, Japan pursues a policy of strict reciprocity in these things, which gives her a tremendous advantage.
I hope the Government will tell us why it must always be the case that for political reasons we sacrifice the economic interests of our big industries for those of Japan. Here is another interesting fact. British East Africa in 1928 took from us about 4,000,000 square yards of cotton piece goods, and 3,000,000 square yards from Japan. Now the position is entirely reversed. We are down to 1,000,000 square yards and Japan is up to 19,000,000 square yards. Recently, I went on a deputation to the Board of Trade to see about the imports of cotton goods into Ceylon, and we were told that a new Agreement had to be made there, for political reasons. It may be that political reasons in this country have to outweigh economic situations at times, but why does it always happen that in these political negotiations it is the Lancashire cotton trade that always gets the thick end of the stick?
I do not want to go into the question of the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause because there is little time to deal with that matter. I want to say a word about the Overseas Trade Department. In the Estimates for the year the amount of money that has been spent by the Department is £500,000, or about one-ninth of 1 per cent. of our export trade. I suggest that in these times that is not nearly enough to spend on furthering the


commercial interests of this country. I do not know whether the Overseas Trade Department is a real Department or not. It seems to me partly under the Foreign Office and partly under the Board of Trade. The sum of £500,000 is not enough, and if you take the salaries and the expenses of administration you will find that they are about £17,000 a year, a mere negligible sum to deal with the most vital thing for this country, that is to restore its commerce. When we are subsidising agriculture and other industries and spending such a negligible amount on our overseas trade is there any wonder that in nearly every market in the world we are being beaten? Is it not time that the Secretary of the Overseas Trade Department had more money to spend? We have only 100 commercial agents and secretaries over the vast field of our commerce throughout the world. The time is more than ripe when the Government should seriously reconsider its attitude towards our export trade in general and the Lancashire cotton trade in particular.

5.49 p.m.

Mr. Graham White: I share the view which has already been expressed this afternoon that the hon. Member for Royton (Mr. Sutcliffe) has rendered a service to the House in giving us an opportunity for reviewing for the first time this Session in any great detail the very important question of our overseas trade. He and the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Kerr) introduced the subject in speeches which were very interesting and which covered a great deal of ground. We must not allow our preoccupations with a sad and disorderly world and the more direct aspects of Defence to distract our attention from what must be the foundation of all our efforts, the maintenance and extension of our overseas trade, which is vital to the defence of the standard of living of our people and is without question the foundation on which every other effort we may be called upon to make must rest. Therefore, I welcome this opportunity to discuss overseas trade questions. If I allowed myself to make one of those party points which are sometimes exhilarating but seldom useful, I could comment on the failure of the two hon. Members to relate the stories they have told of our export trade and industry with the policy adopted in 1931, but on

this occasion I refrain from doing anything of the kind because I want to make my observations as objective as possible.
Before dealing with the subject of the Motion I should like to make some wider comments on the Anglo-American Trade Agreement. It has been mentioned, but solely in regard to specific points. I do not think that quite sufficient importance has been attached to it, having regard to the background in which it was made. I want to congratulate the President of the Board of Trade and those who have been associated with him in this country on what I consider to be a very important achievement. It is true that we shall have to wait to see the full consequences of the Agreement, and when one sees that a duty has been reduced from 45 per cent. to 20 per cent. one does not lose sight of the fact that a duty of 20 per cent. may be almost as prohibitive as one of 45 per cent. But apart from that I do regard as a most remarkable achievement what amounts almost to a complete disavowal of the high tariff policy of the United States of America, which was consummated by the Hawley-Smoot tariff, which in my judgment was a most iniquitous instrument. Also one must not overlook the fact that the powers of President Roosevelt and his administration were limited in all cases to a reduction in tariffs of 50 per cent.
We must also take into account certain other considerations in regard to this Agreement. In the first place, the negotiations themselves have been prolonged and at some stages I do not think they have been altogether easy, but all who have had a hand in it are entitled to our gratitude and our thanks. It would have been comparatively easy to have produced an Agreement with little substance in it. There has been no professedly political object on either side throughout these negotiations, and I am glad there was not. When a designedly political objective is associated with any trade agreement it is not likely in my view in the long run to commend itself to the people of those countries with whom it is wished to extend trading relations. One can mention on this occasion the services rendered with equal determination and good will by Mr. Cordell Hull and the administration of President Roosevelt. We have with them achieved in this matter one important step towards the policy of conciliation and peace


which the President and Mr. Cordell Hull have set themselves to follow. Anyone who makes even a superficial examination of this Agreement must see that if it had not been for the friendly co-operation and a desire to see it go through on the part of Mr. Mackenzie King and other Dominion statesmen it would not have been possible to have produced the Agreement.
The results of the Agreement must necessarily be the subject of speculation, but to my mind we can gauge these results by trying to realise what would have happened if there had been no Agreement. There would have been a chorus of contempt and of satisfaction in some quarters of the world if the Agreement had failed; it would have been pointed to as a failure of democracy; and more than that it would have had a most deplorable effect on our trade and on the whole of our relations with the United States of America. It is a matter of great satisfaction that the Agreement had been made. I notice that Mr. Gilbert Carr, speaking at a meeting of the Anglo-American Society in London, quoted the words of the late Mr. Leonard Reid of the "Daily Telegraph," a writer of distinction and influence on both sides of the Atlantic:
Against the black background of European discord, the concord in trade matters between the great English speaking peoples lights a real lantern of hope. There are reasons for regarding this as one of the most hopeful events which have occurred since the end of the Great War.
I associate myself with that statement. It is a wonderful example in these days to find two great peoples, in the lamentable atmosphere of disorder which exists, coming together and making an agreement for their mutual benefit, for the extension of their trade, an agreement which raises no tariffs, which creates no fresh obstacles to the free exchange of goods, and an agreement which will leave no other country poorer because it has been made. I do not want to go into the matter in any detail because we shall have opportunities of discussing those aspects which are of interest to us, but with the memory of older controversies in mind I cannot but express my satisfaction that the discriminatory duties on Canadian wheat shipped from American ports will finally disappear. It was a thoroughly stupid Customs

regulation which deprived Canada of a very important alternative route of shipment when the St. Lawrence was closed and deprived America of a profitable transit business. That was a matter of serious contention at the time. We can now look upon that as closed.
One hears to-day many pessimistic views with regard to the future of English overseas trade. I am fully aware of the figures quoted by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Burke). They are disappointing and even alarming, but I do not find myself compelled to subscribe to the gloomy views which are so often expressed. I admit that there are dangers the like of which the world has never known before; I am speaking of new trading methods, if they can be called trading methods, by governments themselves, which are of such a character that the individual trader cannot compete. I am in cordial agreement with the hon. Member for Oldham when he speaks about the necessity for direct representation. I associate myself with him in asking for increased representation on the spot. He referred to the services of our Consular officers and our commercial attachés, and to what the Government can do.
Without wishing to detract in any way from the services which our Consular and commercial representatives perform abroad, I submit to the House that there is nothing which they can do to replace the value of actual contact in the markets between the men who make the goods and sell them, and the men who buy them. Is there any policy on foot to try to re-introduce the system of trade delegations? Some 10 or 12 years ago there were some very valuable trade delegations, organised not by individual firms, but by the whole of the trade concerned, and their value was enhanced perhaps by the fact that they were composed of men who were almost unknown in the countries which they visited, where there had been no English representatives for many years. In those countries which are still open to free trade and free intercourse, and where trade is not done on the lines of the arbitrary discrimination of Governments, nothing could be more valuable than an extension of the direct method of representation.
When I look at the course of our export trade, however, I am somewhat concerned to find that we are steadily becoming


dearer sellers. Since 1932, there has been a very marked increase in the prices of our industrial exports in comparison with the average prices of our imports, and actually the increased divergence has reached about 24 per cent. This is a serious matter which calls for consideration. Although it affects a wide range of products, I would like to take the steel trade as an example. From 1920 to 1930 the course of steel prices moved almost in the same proportion on an average as the prices of other industrial products, but since 1930 or 1931 the prices of steel and the prices of other industrial products have greatly diverged, and during the last two years the divergence has risen very steeply. This is a matter which directly affects our export trade, not merely in regard to steel products, but a large variety of other manufactured goods. Since 1932, the steel industry has held practically a monopoly position. The profits in 1930 were 1¼ per cent., and they have risen to approximately 12¼ per cent. since that time. I do not assert that that necessarily means that the monopoly position is being abused, but there is a monopoly position and substantial profits are being made. At Question Time yesterday, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade was asked about the amount of shipbuilding which is being done in Holland, and he replied to the effect that the ships to which reference had been made were ships of a small type for which there are special facilities in Holland. There are, of course, just as good facilities for making these ships in England, and I understand that the firm bearing the honoured name of Samuel White and Company in the Isle of Wight makes that sort of craft.
The question which calls for immediate examination by the Government is whether, relatively, steel prices in this country are too high and whether this is affecting our export trade. There is no question that the prices in this country are higher than the prices in Germany, and during the last two years they have risen more than the prices in Germany, France and the United States. In Belgium, the prices have risen more rapidly during the last two years than they have in this country, but still the prices in Belgium are substantially below the prices in this country. The question is to what extent the high prices and the rigid prices of steel in this country are

affecting our export trade and affecting other industries. I gather that it is the contention of the steel trade that if prices were reduced, the reduction would not lead to any greater consumption. I should be more satisfied that that was a good and conclusive argument if the demand for shipbuilding had ceased or fallen off. What is happening is that a greater proportion of ship repairing and shipbuilding is being done on the Continent than in this country.

Mr. A. Bevan: When the hon. Gentleman refers to the rigidity of steel prices, does he mean that he thinks prices should be revised more frequently, or is he against a fixed price system?

Mr. White: I mean exactly what I say. I am not sufficiently au fait with the organisation of the steel trade to say whether prices should be revised every six months or every 12 months, but I think that an examination should be made to see whether the prices, which have not been altered for some time, ought to be altered, in the national interest. My contention is that the acid test of the steel trade is whether it can adjust its prices to the national necessity and the national requirements. If the demand for manufactured steel products had fallen off and did not exist, the argument that a change in prices would not stimulate a greater demand might be a good one, but I am told that the high prices have affected the building trade and constructional trade, that ferro-concrete is taking the place of steel, and that the prices have also affected the motor trade. Obviously, the question is one which calls for consideration. It is one of the aspects of our internal affairs to which regard should be had. There may be answers to my questions, and I should like to hear what they are.
I would like now to draw attention to the situation which is developing in Eastern and South Eastern Europe, a development which is likely to be increased as a result of the greater ascendency which Germany has acquired in this area since the Munich Agreement. I entirely associate myself with the Prime Minister's statement concerning the policy with regard to British trade in the Balkans and that area of Europe. It may be that we are not concerned and have no right to try to interfere with the legitimate development of German trade in that part


of the world, but statements have been made, and are still being made, which suggest that the operations of German trade in that area will be disastrous to the affairs of this country. As things are at the present time the expansion of German trade has not been disastrous to us, and if it stays as it is, this country need not have any great apprehension; but it is not likely to stay as it is now. It is in this field, in particular, that the Government ought to be prepared to take decisive action as a Government, since the position is one that cannot be met by individual traders.
An examination of the last available figures of the relative position of British and German trade does not indicate that anything very terrible has happened to British trade. In the Northern countries of Europe, we have held our position, and perhaps improved it. In Western Europe, we are holding our own. In some of the countries of South America where there have been strange manipulations of currencies, we have suffered in competition with Germany. In the Argentine we have held our own. In the United States of America, the relative volume of trade as between this country and Germany has increased in our favour. But when we consider the position in South Eastern Europe, we meet with a species of competition, if it can be so called, which is entirely new and of which the world has not hitherto had any experience. For the first time, a large Power, by means of discrimination, by the use of political power and by currency manipulation, is setting out to divert trade in a way of which we have had little experience before. It is clear that these methods, if they are pursued and if there is no attempt by us to maintain our position in those markets and sustain the trade we have there, may in course of time lead to very unfortunate consequences to such trade as we still have in that area. The natural fact arising from those methods of trading is that if they are to be completely successful, they must be complete as between one country and another. In those countries where these methods of currency manipulation take place and where there is trade on the barter system, the natural result must be to make those countries more anxious to trade with a country which can give them free exchange. There we have our open-

ing in that part of the world. Do not let us lose sight of the fact that the whole of the present exports from the Danubian countries are small in comparison with our great imports.
Hon. Members are no doubt familiar with the kind of transactions that have been taking place. For instance, a considerable proportion of the Rumanian wheat crop is bought by Germany at a price which is highly attractive to the growers of wheat in Rumania; but when the question of payment arises, the Rumanian growers find that the payment is put into the clearing and that they can get it only in blocked marks if and when they buy goods from Germany. Consequently, the Rumanian Government have the task of financing their own wheat crop. On the other hand, the exporter in Germany is free to sell goods to Rumania at attractive prices, because as soon as the goods cross the frontier into Rumania, he is entitled to draw on the blocked marks account for payment. That is what is happening, but I doubt very much whether these methods are likely to be permanent. They would not be permanent if there were any adequate counter markets available.
It is altogether unsatisfactory to a country which has a credit, on which it is entitled to import manufactured goods, to be told when it wants some particular class of goods that it cannot have those goods but that it must take other goods which it does not want. It is very unsatisfactory for Rumania, for instance if it wants typewriters, to receive instead a consignment of mouth-organs. I am told that in Yugoslavia there is such an amount of aspirin at present, that even if each one of the population had a headache every day, it would not be consumed in a year. That is the kind of transaction which is taking place and those transactions cannot give satisfaction to the people of the countries who are obliged to carry them out. Therefore we must be prepared to buy wherever we can and if we think it worth our while to keep this trade I think we can do it, but it will require vigilance and decision.
We have one hopeful thing now in the Anglo-American Trade Agreement and I congratulate all those who have had a hand in it. I hope that they will continue to pursue the same policy and that this agreement will not prove to be the


last agreement of the kind. I hope that it will be found possible to negotiate further to extend it and apply it so that international trade will cease to be what it is so largely at the present time, merely a process of trying to force exports and cut down imports. That policy, in its ultimate meaning, simply amounts to putting people into work in one place, at the expense of putting other people out of work somewhere else. I hope that on the basis of the Anglo-American Agreement we shall pursue a steady course for the removal of trade barriers and that we shall aim at making international trade more and more the willing exchange of goods and services.

6.18 p.m.

Sir Stanley Reed: I should not have intervened, however diffidently, in this Debate if it were not for the fact that there is one point of view which has not yet been put before the House. In our economic discussions we hear constantly the views of the industrialists and the views of the workpeople—the producers—but very little is heard about that third factor in economics, namely, the buyer. It is because he has not been mentioned this afternoon that I venture to trespass upon the attention of the House for a few minutes. I represent, perhaps almost alone in this House, the oversea buyer, the man who is the backbone and the central prop of our export trade. For nearly 30 years of my life I served in one of the great markets of the Empire and in that market I was very actively connected with many forms of industry. I can speak from personal experience having been connected with the placing of orders for at least a million, possibly millions of pounds on the products of various branches of British industry and manufacture.
When the oversea buyer is deciding to make a purchase, what is the determining factor in his decision? Naturally he locks first to Great Britain, partly from sentiment and partly from his experience and his knowledge of the quality, the craftsmanship and the skill of design to be found in British goods. But when all allowance has been made for this factor there is one other factor which is final and that is the factor of cost—of price. The question of price has been touched upon only briefly in this discussion by the hon. Member who spoke last. He referred to the disparity between the manufactur-

ing costs on which we have to sell, and the agricultural price on which the individual oversea has to buy. During the Debate on the Special Areas a tribute was justly paid to the skill of our craftsmen and their capacity for finished production. The unfortunate thing is that we are not to-day alone in the possession of those qualities. We are not to-day the workshop of the world. The automatic tool has been a great leveller between the producing nations, some with more experience and some with less.
I wish to stress this point because I hear from all sides of the House incessant demands on the Government to spend more and yet more, but I have never yet heard from any part of the House, any attempt whatever to relate the piling up of this prodigious expenditure to the question of the cost of the goods which we must export and in the sale of which price is the final factor. I ask in all earnestness, as one who has had experience of the buying point of view, as one who knows the buyer—the pillar of our export trade—that this House should very jealously watch over increased expenditure and correlate all proposed expenditure to the cost imposed upon our export trade before deciding finally upon it.
There is this very serious consideration regarding the competition of foreign manufacturers in an oversea Dominion. When the foreign manufacturer gets in, whether on a question of price or as the result of an industrial dispute in this country, or for any other cause, something more is involved than the mere loss of wages represented by that single purchase. There is the establishment in that country of a "cell" of competitive influence. When you buy a foreign plant it is necessary to have a manufacturer's agent there to instal it; he may have to remain there to run it, and when the need arises for any extension or renewal, then, he naturally and inevitably looks to his own country to supply what is necessary. I have seen that process repeatedly and I know how that tendency operates to the detriment and prejudice of British industry.
I should not refer to the question of Lancashire to-night were it not for the fact that it has already played a prominent part in this discussion. I do not think there is anybody in the House who has not been profoundly moved by the appeal from the Lancashire Members and


the accounts which we have heard of the distress among the workers in the great cotton industry. We know the great traditions of high skill belonging to those workers and I am sure there is no Member here who would not do anything in his power to help Lancashire out of its difficulties, if any practical scheme were put forward for doing so. But we shall do no service to Lancashire or its people, if we hold out false hopes. I want to tell the House definitely that, as far as the great Indian market is concerned, Lancashire's position can never be restored to what it was in pre-war years. In pre-war years, Lancashire held 97 per cent. of the trade in cotton piece goods imported into India. That percentage has now sunk to 45 and in those years the Indian production of yarn has doubled and the Indian production of cloth has gone up fourfold. Indian production enjoys the advantages of proximity to the source of raw material and to the consuming market and apart from these advantages the Indian industry must ultimately provide for the bulk of the demand?

Sir Joseph Nall: Why do they need tariffs?

Sir S. Reed: I know India has tariffs, but have we not tariffs in this country? Hon. Members speak of a tariff of 20 per cent. but are there not tariffs of 33⅓ per cent.?

Sir J. Nall: Not on cotton.

Sir S. Reed: You cannot pick and choose the articles here and there. If you are going to have tariffs they will be applied in accordance with the wishes and needs of the people who frame them.

Major Procter: Is it fair that we should allow Indian goods to come into this market without any tariffs and that they should put 20 per cent. on our goods going into their market? We also provide the whole of the Colonial market for the Indian manufacturer, without any tariff whatever. Surely the hon. Gentleman must agree that Lancashire is entitled to fair play?

Sir S. Reed: The tariff imposed in this country is levied by the people in this country in accordance with their own conception of their own interests. A tariff in India is levied by the legislature of

that country in accordance with its conception of that country's interest. We cannot claim a right for ourselves in tariff policy and exercise that right, without conceding the same right to those to whom we had wisely and generously given control of their own affairs. What I am concerned with however is not the trade that we have lost but the trade which remains. There is this 45 per cent. of the imports of textile goods into India which still remains with Lancashire. I implore those who can speak with authority for Lancashire to consider how they are to retain and possibly develop that trade. They will not do so without some greater concentration on production, some greater economy in marketing and some greater vivacity in their selling policy than they have been showing.
The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hamilton Kerr) spoke of competition from Japan. Japanese competition has evolved a system which embraces all those agencies under one control; if one goes back and studies the history of the Hanseatic League one will find modern Japanese conditions reflected there and may I say with all respect that the Japanese for nearly 40 years have been presenting Lancashire with an example of their methods. But I do urge upon hon. Members the consideration that the market which remains can be retained and may be extended and I hope and trust that Lancashire will seize the opportunity which still remains to it. One or two questions have been asked about the Indian trade agreement and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has been asked to make some statement upon it. The Mover and the Seconder of this Motion very wisely discarded any idea of the use of the political voting power of Lancashire in this House, in order to force upon India trade agreements which would be repugnant to that country. I would ask them to go even further and to see that the voting power of Lancashire in this House is not used to prejudice any general trade agreement merely because that general trade agreement does not bring them specific advantages.

Mr. Silverman: If we are to accept the hon. Gentleman's argument that Lancashire must continue to be satisfied with 45 per cent. of the trade which it used to enjoy what in his view is to become of the rest of Lancashire?

Sir S. Reed: I did not ask Lancashire to be satisfied; I asked Lancashire so to use its opportunities as not only to hold but to expand its share of Indian trade, and I suggested what, to my mind—and I speak with practical experience—were the only means by which Lancashire could maintain and expand that market. I have had actual experience, and on a big scale, and with this experience I would invite the House, when schemes for social improvement and national expenditure are before it, never to lose sight of the influence they must exercise on the cost of production, on the selling costs which must be a governing factor in the maintenance, much more the expansion of our export trade. By that trade we live or perish; that trade cannot flourish if it is hamstrung by legislative burdens which overload it in days of such intensive competition as those in which we live.

6.31 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: I gladly pay my tribute to the hon. Member for Royton (Mr. Sutcliffe), who raised this Debate, and I agree that this is a subject of prime importance. It concerns our major industries, upon which so many people depend for their livelihood, and it affects our prestige and indeed the whole future of the country. At the same time I must not be regarded as accepting all the arguments of the hon. Member. Indeed, in some respects I differ from him fundamentally, and that is indeed the reason for the Amendment on the Paper. It is not my intention to dwell upon the divergencies of view held in every quarter of this House. What concerns us more is to ascertain by what means we can escape from our present difficulty. But I am tempted to remind hon. Members that there is some significance in the Motion advanced by those who sit on the Government side of the House. After six years of tariffs they now complain of the state of our export trade. That is curiously like an admission that the Government's fiscal policy, whatever it may have accomplished, has failed to recapture our lost foreign markets. Obviously, tariffs are incapable of solving the problem, otherwise this discussion would be redundant, and we on these benches ask whether, in the judgment of hon. Members opposite, tariffs are too high or too low or whether it is now agreed that they have become ineffective in a crumbling

market. But the last thing that I desire to do is to revive the barren and irrelevant fiscal issues of the past. We have much more serious work to do.
There is genuine agreement as regards the state of our export trade, yet it would be folly to exaggerate the position. We may be doing as well as can be expected. The world has never fully recovered from the shock of the post-war years, the vast drain on financial resources, and the follies of so-called statesmen, who vainly imagined that by imposing reparations on other countries they were assisting their own people. Moreover, other countries have steadily developed their industries and have adopted the industrial methods of the older industrial countries and, indeed, improved upon them, and that applies equally to the primary producing countries. Thus the pressure of competition is ever increasing; it is a natural and inevitable tendency. But the problem in this country is differentiated in its character. Some industries—for example, the electrical industries—are flourishing, and their exports are on the increase.
The real problem is to be found, as both my hon. Friends who have taken part in this Debate have maintained, in the coal, cotton, and shipbuilding industries, although, of course, others as well are affected. The facts are beyond dispute, they are familiar to every hon. Member, and they have been stated here repeatedly, but let us consider the latest and most accurate figures and facts known to us. I take for my purpose the month of October. We find that coal exports were 7 per cent. less in that month than for the same period last year; in iron and steel 159,100 tons were exported as against 260,000 tons in the corresponding month of last year; in cotton we exported 29 per cent. less cloth than in the previous October period; and we also exported 1,281 fewer private motor cars. If these figures are translated into actual amounts and values and also into the actual number of persons affected, it will be realised that the position is one which calls for serious thought.
What is the issue before us? It is whether we can take the proper and effective steps either to expand our markets or, at the very least, to arrest the decline. We must recognise, to begin with, that over some of the causes of this downward tendency we have no control what-


ever. For example, we are unable to interfere in the trading methods employed by certain other countries, and, for example, we cannot compete successfully with certain classes of foreign-made goods, because they are too cheap, both as to price and quality, and because they are produced by labour which is paid deplorably low wages and which works excessively long hours. It may be that in respect of some of these articles we can no longer remain supreme in the world's markets; we may require to concentrate on the better qualities. Nor can we control the development of secondary industries in other countries, even if we were so inclined. We must reconcile ourselves to that fact; it is inescapable. But one of the main causes of the contraction in our markets, accompanied by formidable competition from other countries, is the low standard of living and the consequent low purchasing power in certain countries, for example in India, in our Colonial possessions, and in some European countries.
Perhaps I may be pardoned if I say that that is the crux of the whole problem. You may fiddle about with the machinery of organisation, you may reconstruct it entirely, you can, if you care, retain your present methods, you can adopt the quaint devices suggested by the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) or any of those devices suggested by hon. Members opposite, but unless you deal with the fundamental cause of contracted international trade, namely, low purchasing power, the problem will remain. The question that we ask, therefore, is: Can the Government do anything to stimulate an upward movement? I believe they could if they cared. It could be done through the International Labour Office, but instead of assisting to raise the level of wages and working standards through the organisation of the International Labour Office, the Government have so far deliberately frustrated all efforts in that desirable direction. Moreover, the Government might take appropriate action in the direction of stimulating and increasing purchasing power in our Colonial possessions. We have recently heard about the deplorable conditions in the West Indies. Something could be done there by direct Government intervention, and surely, if the standard

of living could be raised in those countries, it would relax the pressure on the world market by increasing the demand for consumable goods of the various kinds with which our export trades are deeply concerned.
We could do more than this. We could improve our methods of trade publicity. I entirely agree with what the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hamilton Kerr) said. In large measure it was repeated by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Burke), who made such an interesting speech. We ought to spend liberally in this direction, but at the present time publicity for export purposes seems to be undertaken by anybody or everybody. It seems to be nobody's business, and there is no attempt at coordination. I certainly think that if we believe in the quality of our products, we ought not to be parsimonious in providing the necessary publicity in order to find the markets which we require, and I shall await with interest the reply of the hon. Member on that head.
Again, we might examine the methods employed by some traders who seem to be dilatory in giving delivery and who seem to think that foreigners can be treated as traders treated them in the halcyon days when the world markets were at our feet. Take the case of Russian trade. I came across a very interesting example of the failure of British exporters to make delivery. There has been considerable controversy in this House on the question of the alleged adverse balance of Anglo-Soviet trade, but in a document which I have in my possession, which I obtained from an unimpeachable source, I find that British manufacturers had on 1st November, 1938, goods undelivered against orders placed by Soviet organisations in the United Kingdom to the value of £2,262,110; and they go on to point out, because it might be thought that the failure of delivery was due to the fact that the goods were not due for delivery, that if these goods had been delivered, that amount would have been included in the import figures for Soviet Russia and would have considerably reduced the adverse balance of trade. At any rate, this is the statement put in my possession, and I think it is for the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade or for the Secretary for the Overseas Trade Department to deal with this matter if there be any truth in the contention.
We might adopt a foreign policy more in keeping with our trade requirements. What is the position to-day? We allow our ships to be bombarded, thus frightening shipping firms away and increasing premiums. Something was said about that to-day. We permit Germany and Italy to capture our trade before our very eyes, and apparently make no attempt to prevent it. What are the facts in connection with our trade with Spain? I shall say nothing about our trade with Republican Spain and shall deal only, and that very briefly, with our trade with that part of Spanish territory which is now under the control of General Franco. There are some very interesting facts, and I will deal primarily with the shipping position. The arrival of British vessels in Franco ports in May, 1935, was 184, but in May, 1938, it had been reduced to 89. Consider the position as regards German vessels trading with Franco ports. The arrival of German vessels in Franco ports in May, 1935, was 108, and in 1938 it had increased to 165. There may, of course, be substantial reasons why our trade is diminishing in that quarter, but clearly they relate to our foreign policy. It that policy were sound and healthy and properly directed, we should not be losing our mercantile marine position in that part of the world. There is a great deal to be said on that aspect of the subject, but I forbear.
I come to the Amendment. We are asking for national trading organisations for the purpose of dealing with our export trades. Some of us are tired of the antics of traders and exporters in this country. They are too stodgy. They rely upon traditional methods which are now out-of-date, and I agree with the hon. Member for Oldham that they display no imagination whatever. Most of us dislike German persecution, but we must agree that the trade machinery devised in that country for exploiting the world markets in ingenious and has succeeded where we have failed. What is the position in this country? We have a mass of traders speaking with different voices. German trade speaks with one voice. That is the essential difference. Let us consider some of the effects of this paucity in organisation—there is, indeed, no actual organisation at all. Of course, private traders will tell us that they know their own business best, but unfortunately for them and everybody

else the facts belie their self-assurance and optimism. We have to deal with effects and results, and they are obvious to everybody.
Let us consider the coal trade. We have there done something very singular; we have established an internal centralised organisation. That is all very well in its way, but it is no use to the export trade. There is no central organisation dealing with the export trade, except in South Wales, where recently an organisation of the kind was established by the traders and exporters, and it is now vested in the hands of one particular undertaking. It is true that as a result of that modest centralised effort there has been no stimulus to exports, but it has succeeded in doing something that is almost as valuable; it has maintained a reasonable price level. I go so far as to say that that is not a disadvantage, for if we cannot sell any more goods abroad, the next best thing is to receive a higher price for the goods we do sell. Obviously, if we can establish an organisation, even of so modest a character, which can assist in bolstering up the price level for export purposes, it is an advantage.
The same applies to the cotton industry. I shall not deal with that, because so much has been said about it, except to say that the Government have played about with this question far too long. They maintain that those who are responsible for the running of the cotton industry are divided and, therefore, in the absence of agreement, nothing can be done. Surely the obvious thing to do, if we are concerned about cotton exports and the rebuilding of the Lancashire cotton industry, is to ask those gentlemen who will not agree to stand out of the way and for the Government to use compulsory powers.

Sir Henry Fildes: Will the hon. Gentleman deal with the point that coal to-day is costing the cotton industry £4,000,000 a year more than it did last year?

Mr. Shinwell: It may well be that the cotton industry has to pay heavy charges for the coal it uses, but that is an example of the lack of effective organisation in the country, which leads to one industry exploiting another. It is no part of the policy of the Labour party to have a situation of that kind in this country, Therefore, if the hon. Gentleman has any


complaint to make on that score, it lies at the door of the right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench.
I want to say a word about shipbuilding. The hon. Member for East Birkenhead argued that the price of steel affected the building of ships in this country. It is a remarkable fact, however, that steel prices from 1924 to 1937 suffered a serious reduction. The hon. Member argued as if there had been an appreciable increase in prices which militated against shipbuilding in this country. In 1924 the ascertained price of steel plates was £9 11s. a ton. In 1937 it was only £8 18s. 5d., and in the intervening years it never exceeded £7 15s. It is not so much the high steel prices which are at the root of the trouble in respect of shipbuilding. There is a system in the steel industry which provides for rebates to the shipbuilding industry, and, as far as exports are concerned, the International Steel Cartel provides for a reduction of 7½ per cent. on all steel that is exported. It is possible to extend the system of rebates, and I suggest that the Minister should put himself in communication with the Iron and Steel Trades Federation in order to find out whether that can be done. It would assist the shipbuilding industry to some extent. I should not be surprised if the reason why Holland is now building ships which could be built in this country is that she is buying cheap steel from Belgium and, of course, getting the advantage of the reduction in the export rate. That also might be inquired into. A further point is that the use of capital might be extended and properly directed. We should have no hesitation in using capital to assist our potential customers so long as our home needs are not neglected. If capital is available it should be used. That would mean the establishment of an international investment board, because investment, if it is to be undertaken, should be well directed and should not concern itself so much with private and selfish interests, but should concern itself with the interests of the community as a whole.
I come finally to the question of German and other subsidised competition. We are gradually being driven from markets which formerly provided us with a liberal outlet for our goods, particularly by Germany. Let no one suppose for a moment that we on these benches are

hostile to Germany as a whole. Whatever views we may hold about the political dispensation in that country, we recognise that Germany has a right to trade, a right to export and import as freely as we do. Let us consider what has happened. Take the case of coal. The average subsidy on German coal is six marks a ton. For much of their exports it is more. That takes no account of additional subsidies which are derived from the reduction in freights. What is happening in consequence? The hon. Member for East Birkenhead, I think, argued as if Germany had not traded in such a fashion as to deprive us of much of our trade in foreign markets. He is all wrong.
I have in my possession a publication called "Coal and Colliery News" for November, 1938, in which that point is dealt with in relation to coal. It shows that our trade with Brazil has diminished. In spite of the fact that Brazil owes large sums for business done in this country in 1930, she is reducing her trade with this country. Now she has increased her imports of coal from Germany and takes less from us. Portugal, too—and this is an interesting point—is taking less from us and more from Germany. The same applies to the Argentine, in spite of the trade treaty. All sorts of excuses are made by these countries. If we adopt measures of retaliation it may lead to difficulties among the countries, but I put this point to the right hon. Gentleman. In the case of Portugal, for example, which comes within the sterling group, Germany is very anxious to trade with her in order to obtain currency to buy from elsewhere imports which she badly requires. In the case of Portugal, we might, as a result of our trade treaty operations, induce her to consider whether she ought not to take as much from us as we take from her. The same might apply very well to the Argentine and the other countries.
The fact is that these countries have succumbed to German blandishments. Some of them are paying in perfectly good currency, although they are forced to take what is offered in return. Why should we give the German Government the benefit of the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause, having regard to existing circumstances? I am not complaining about German exports or imports, or about


Germany capturing our markets. It is not a complaint against Germany so much as a complaint against our former customers who want to send goods to this country but are not prepared to take goods in return. I recognise all the obligations of multilateral trade and so on, but these matters do not apply to some of the countries to which I have referred. Reference has been made to the Anglo-American Trade Agreement. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade deserves our commendation for the work he has done in connection with it. I observe that the United States is denying Germany the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause. What are we to do? I venture to put a question to hon. Members. This is no party matter; it is a matter which has been forced upon us by the exigencies of the new situation, for which we are not responsible. I put it to hon. Members and to the Government, that if Germany is not prepared to reduce her tariff or to operate her trade in a fair and reasonable fashion according to the traditional capitalist system—I am not going to make a song and dance about that now—if Germany is not prepared to play the game, we ought not to allow her to obtain all the advantages that accrue from the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause.
There are a great many other points that I should have liked to mention, but I conclude by urging upon the Government the most careful examination of the situation to be followed by speedy and effective action. They must not allow vested interests to stand in the way, but should concern themselves only with the general interests. Nor should they, because of any apparent loss of dignity, refuse to consider any suggestions placed before them—that happens too often—even if those suggestions are made by political opponents. For this is no party matter, but one affecting every section of the community. If they flinch from this task we shall witness, if not the collapse of our export trades, at least a further deterioration, and we shall end up with a major disaster. That is a luxury we cannot afford. The Government may require to employ new devices which hitherto have been regarded as objectionable. Let us not forget that we are living in a new world which is undergoing a vast change, in which it is impossible to stand still and yet hope to make progress. I

do not despair of the future of British export trade, but if it is to be revived and even maintained at its present level, it will require courage and the acceptance of new ideas which the present situation has rendered necessary.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. R. S. Hudson (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): We are indebted to the hon. Member for Royton (Mr. Sutcliffe) for raising this Debate. As a matter of fact, it is the first time in the last four or five years in which a private Member has utilised his opportunities to raise the question of our export trade. My only regret is that we should have had such a short time to discuss the matter, in view of its importance, and that I have to exclude several hon. Members as the result of getting up to speak now. However, I hope we may have other opportunities to disuss the matter. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, with almost the whole of whose speech I agreed, said we must not take too tragic a view of the export trade. I should like to put the matter, as I see it, in its proper perspective. We have been hearing a lot lately about the increase of our adverse balance of trade, and I have made it the subject of several speeches in the country. But, although the adverse visible balance of trade was increasing very seriously in the early part of the year, that tendency has been reversed in recent months, with the result that for the 10 months of this year it is nearly £12 million less than in the corresponding period of last year. I am not going to suggest for a moment that it is not serious, and that if it deteriorated we should not have to take new steps, but I hope to show that there are reasonable causes for what is happening.
If you look at the final balance of payments, after taking into account our invisible exports, you will find that the adverse balance of payments ran over the last four or five years to an average of £16,000,000 a year, and it was only last year that it suddenly jumped to the substantial figure of £52,000,000. The fact that there is that adverse balance means, if you analyse it, that a larger amount has been invested from abroad in this country than we have invested from this country abroad. If you look at the situation in the world, that reversal of the old trend of investment is not to be wondered at when you think of the diffi-


culties, the uncertainty throughout the world and the heavy losses that British investors have suffered in foreign countries. At the same time that you have had these adverse effects abroad you have had, owing to the development of the home market under tariffs, owing in the last year or two to rearmament, and owing to the great increase in our social services, and particularly to our housing programme, a very largely increased field at home for the profitable investment of capital. Therefore, it is not really astonishing that we should be seeing this reversal, but I think, if it became more accentuated, it would be a thing with which we should have to deal.
Several hon. Members have referred to the difficulties that face our export trade at present. References have been made to the falling off in the purchasing power of our customers abroad. There have been particularly, of course, the war in the Far East and the war in Spain. Many of our older markets have been lost as the result of the increasing industrialisation of countries which originally were merely producers of raw material, and I think the loss of trade in Lancashire is very largely to be attributed to that item alone. I took out some interesting figures as an illustration of the sort of process that has been going on, and I instance the exports from this country of textile machinery. Our textile machinery exports during the last 10 years have totalled a figure of £75,500,000, of which £22,250,000 was sold to British India alone. Naturally, when you are faced with figures of that kind, you cannot expect that Lancashire's export trade in yarns and tissues will not suffer. Let no one in reply to this say that this is entirely the fault of the British manufacturers of textile machinery. If they had not exported it, someone else would have done so, and I do not think they can be blamed. On the contrary, so far as they have created employment here, they are to be congratulated. The hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) said it was necessary to face up to the conditions and to realise that we should have to depend more and more in the future on new markets and on the production and sale of new forms of goods. I agree, but naturally in the period of change-over there is bound to be a great deal of distress amongst the firms and individuals con-

cerned. Lancashire, in fact, to take a case in point, is going through this process and during the last few years has changed over very successfully to the creation of a very large number of smaller and newer industries which are placing in employment numbers of people who have been displaced from other industries.
In face of an analysis of that kind it must be obvious that there is no single remedy that can be applied. The remedies are various. Indeed, there is no remedy that the Government of itself can hope successfully to apply. All we can hope to do is to mitigate the effects of these various causes. We have succeeded by our policy in mitigating those effects very successfully. We have, for example, helped to maintain the purchasing power of our consumers by our policy of cheap money and, in particular cases, by our schemes for the regulation of such primary commodities as tin and rubber. We have negotiated with many countries bilateral agreements and, as a result, we have succeeded in reducing the barriers to our trade, and in a number of cases—Denmark and the Scandinavian countries, for example—we have succeeded in securing a definite market for certain of our goods—both coal and cotton. As an example with which the House will be familiar, the increase of our export trade with these trade agreement countries amounts to £125,000,000 in the last few years. A figure of which the House will not be aware, but which is not without significance, is that in the last nine months, when we have been suffering from a general recession of exports, whereas our trade with the non-agreement countries went down by no less than £32,000,000, our trade with the agreement countries went down by only some £20,000,000. Our trade with the non-agreement countries went down 18 per cent., and with the agreement countries 7½ per cent., which shows that not only in times of trade expansion but also in times of recession, this policy of trade agreements is of some definite benefit to the British export trade. Another thing that we have done is to maintain this country as one of the most important consumer markets in the world. We cannot expect other people to buy from us unless we in turn are prepared to buy from them. I, therefore, think that our success in maintaining this country as a great market for


the goods of the world has been of immense benefit to our export trade.
Several Members have referred to the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause and have suggested that in many cases we ought to take more drastic steps to see that countries that sell to us also buy from us. I agree very largely with the idea underlying many of these remarks, but the policy must not be carried to excess, except in the case of those countries which, obviously, are refusing, or have refused, to play their fair share in carrying on or allowing the international trade of the world to be carried on. That policy involves the admission that in certain circumstances we have, and we must continue to have, an adverse balance of trade. In the course of the negotiations with the United States I came across a figure which struck me very much. We bought from the United States 535,000,000 dollars worth of goods last year and sold them about 200,000,000 dollars worth, leaving an apparent adverse balance of 335,000,000 dollars against us. If you look at the trade of the British Empire as a whole, you can take one small part of it, British Malaya, and you will find that in the same year British Malaya sold to the United States 235,000,000 dollars worth of goods and the United States sold to Malaya—how much does the House think?—9,000,000 dollars worth. In other words, that small part of the Empire is paying off not less than 226,000,000 dollars worth of the adverse balance. We are paying for our wheat from America with our exports of rubber from Malaya. I could quote other instances if I had time which show that there is another side to the question.
When you come to countries which have definitely gone out of their way to discriminate against us and not play the game, we have had no hesitation at all in putting on the screw. I need only quote the case of the agreement that we negotiated with Germany this summer, in which we insisted not merely that Germany should take an increased percentage of manufactured goods instead of raw materials and semi-manufactured goods, but that her obligation to purchase these goods from us should be increased by 90 per cent. of whatever sum she gained by selling goods to us over a certain level. In the case of Italy, as in other cases where we thought we were not being fairly treated, we negotiated an agreement

under which they were compelled to agree to take goods from us to the extent of 87 per cent. of their sales to us. So I think we can claim that where there has been shown to be good cause we have insisted on being properly treated. An hon. Member mentioned Soviet Russia, and I was very interested to hear his statement that there were £2,000,000 worth of goods outstanding waiting for delivery, and that it was suggested to him by certain Russian sources that if those goods had been delivered the adverse balance would have been reduced. I am delighted to hear that it is beginning to penetrate the mind of Soviet Russia that we are concerned at the rising adverse balance. We were compelled some years ago to negotiate an agreement with Soviet Russia under which she undertook to make purchases from this country up to a certain proportion of what we took from her. We tried hard to insist that that proportion should include goods manufactured here, but owing to the fact that we were at that time in a sellers' market Russia had the whip hand and we were unable to get what we wanted. The situation has changed now. The world has become not a sellers' market but a buyers' market, and I have hopes that very soon we shall be in a position to see that this adverse balance of trade is reduced, and reduced more especially not by re-exports from this country but by Russian purchases of our manufactured goods.

Mr. Shinwell: Lest the hon. Gentleman should imagine that I am allowing him to get away with that, I should like to say that he must not forget that the attitude of certain British Governments has not been conducive to Russian trade with us.

Mr. Boothby: May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he should include herring in those manufactured goods?

Mr. Hudson: Two hon. Members referred to the question of our cotton export trade with Africa, and suggested that if the Congo Basin Treaty were altered or denounced, that would have a material effect. It has been repeatedly stated from this Box that it is quite impossible to denounce the Congo Basin Treaty or to alter it except with the assent of the other signatories, and as one of the signatories is Japan, and one of the objects of altering the treaty would be to reduce Japanese exports, the chances of Japan agreeing to such an alteration are


extremely small. On the other hand, as a result of the quota policy which we have imposed upon certain Colonies in favour of Lancashire the exports of British cotton textiles have increased from £4,000,000 to £7,800,000 in five years. Our share of the cotton trade with those Colonies has increased from 57 per cent. to 66 per cent., while the share of Japan has decreased from 27 to 9 per cent. The total imports of cotton goods from all countries into the British Congo Basin Treaty areas (excluding mandated territory) amounted in 1937 to only £1,400,000, and if the whole of that trade were given to this country, which is obviously impossible, that would bring Lancashire merely a fraction of the advantage she has already got as a result of our quota policy. Therefore, I do hope that we shall hear the end of this myth that the denunciation of the Congo Basin Treaty is possible, or that if it were denounced the effect on Lancashire would be a material one.
The hon. Member said it would be a very good thing if we were to raise the standard of living and the consuming power of our customers throughout the world, especially of the inhabitants of our Colonies. I quite agree, but he must not forget that it would have a result which would run entirely counter to the accepted policy of his own party of reducing the cost of living in this country. If you are going to raise the standard of living of those peoples, if you are going to give them more for the products they send here, you will increase the cost of living in this country. You have only to take the classic case of West African cocoa. When in 1936 the price of cocoa was 42s. per cwt. Lancashire sent to West Africa £3,300,000 worth of goods in the ten months ending 31st October. When the price of cocoa rose to 50s. and it became, therefore, more expensive to the British housewife, our total exports rose still further; but when, during the first ten months of this year the price of cocoa fell to 37s. and became, therefore, cheaper for the British housewife, and helped to reduce the cost of living, Lancashire's exports fell to £1,250,000. In other words there is a direct connection between the cost of raw materials in West Africa and the amount of goods you can send. I could quote other similar instances in the Argentine.
The hon. Member made another gallant attempt to have it both ways when he complained about the reduction in the number of British ships going to Franco territory compared with the number of German ships. Clearly one of the main reasons why the number of German ships is greater is the large quantity of munitions that the German Government are sending to Franco, and I have yet to learn, what would be the obvious corollary, that he wants to see the number of British ships going to Franco territories increased, as would be the case if we were to follow that policy of sending munitions.

Mr. Leslie: Send them to the Spanish Government.

Mr. Hudson: Finally, we come to the question of Germany. The hon. Member asked why we did not refuse to extend the Most-Favoured-Nation treatment to Germany, following the example of the United States. The answer is that Germany is refused Most-Favoured-Nation treatment by the United States because she is discriminating against American goods in Germany. Germany is not discriminating against British goods in Germany. Our complaint is that Germany is, by her methods, destroying trade throughout the world. We thus have no case for taking away Most-Favoured-Nation treatment, which depends upon how Germany treats our goods in Germany, and the question is the very much broader one of how to meet the new form of German competition throughout the world. As far as Germany herself is concerned, we have got her to take our exports up to 60 per cent. of her exports to us up to a certain level and up to 90 per cent. of her exports to us in excess of this level.
As regards Central and South-Eastern Europe, I have got out some figures which, I think, will interest the House. As far as we can make out, because it is difficult to get very exact information as to the way in which things are done in Germany, the basis of their hold is that they pay to producers in Central and South-Eastern Europe much more than the world price. Obviously, they do that at the expense of their own people. How they treat their own people is a matter for the German Government, but it does affect us. At a particular date this year the Germans were paying over £10 a ton for wheat, at a time when Manitoba No. 1


wheat was selling at £7 on the London market.

Mr. A. Jenkins: Was that in blocked marks?

Mr. Hudson: No, that is at the official rate of exchange provided for in the German agreement. We found, also, that she was buying barley at £7 10s. a ton when the London price was £5 6s. She was buying eggs at £7 12s. the metric quintal when the price in London was £5 18s. She has followed the same course in regard to cotton, hides, meat, poultry, oil seeds and cereals, buying them at prices so high that producers sending to other markets cannot hope to obtain similar prices. In the case of Turkey, for example, to take the case of mohair, owing largely to her action imports of mohair to this country which were £190,000 in the first 10 months of last year, have decreased to £24,000 in the corresponding period this year because of the increase in price.

Mr. Jenkins: Is this trade done on the system of blocked marks?

Mr. Hudson: Whatever you like to call it, the effect of it is that the Rumanian or Bulgarian peasant receives more from his sales to Germany than he would be able to get by sales on the world market. Then take the case of Poland. The Germans have entered into an agreement by which Poland gets a large quantity of machinery, in this case at competitive prices. Germany has contracted to buy over a period of nine years agricultural produce from Poland at well above world prices, and Poland has also obtained her goods on credit and has to pay interest at a very low rate.

Mr. Jenkins: To make the picture complete the hon. Gentleman should give us the prices of the articles Germany is to supply to Poland.

Mr. Hudson: I have said that in this particular case Germany has sold her machinery at competitive prices. I am trying to explain that by these methods Germany is obtaining a stranglehold on the countries in that part of Europe, an uneconomic stranglehold at the expense of her own people, because it means raising the cost of living to her own people and, in fact, exporting goods at less than cost price. Hon. Members ask "What is the solution here?" Obviously, I do not think any one wishes us to adopt similar

methods. We do not want to see the cost of bread increased here because we buy, in competition with Germany, wheat from Rumania at a price above the world price; but clearly we have to meet this competition in the case of Poland.
We have made a survey of all possible methods and the only way we see is by organising our industries in such a way that they will be able to speak as units with their opposite numbers in. Germany and say "Unless you are prepared to put an end to this form of treatment, unless you are prepared to come to an agreement to sell your goods at prices which represent a reasonable return, then we will fight you and beat you at your own game." This country is infinitely stronger financially than, I was going to say, any other country in the world, but certainly stronger than Germany, and therefore we have great advantages, advantages which I believe will result in our winning the fight; but it is an essential preliminary that our own industries should be organised. Where they have been organised, they have succeeded, over the last few months, in making satisfactory agreements with their opposite numbers in Germany. I have been engaged for several months past in doing my best to see that more and more industries are organised on this basis in order to meet this competition, and I am glad to be able to tell the House that we are meeting with success.

Mr. Shinwell: Then you will accept our Amendment?

Mr. Hudson: No. The Amendment suggests boards, which I do not believe would be effective, because they would have exactly the same effect on the world as the German measures, making the nations of the world hate the particular country which adopted them. Every country in South-Eastern Europe hates this process; they are all afraid of being economically strangled by Germany, and they are continually turning to us to ask us to help them out. I think the same evil results on international relations would follow from the system suggested in the Amendment.
In conclusion, I would say that while a great deal has been heard about our relative inefficiency in industry, we still export nearly £600,000,000 worth of goods a year. That in itself proves that there must be plenty of really efficient industries left in this country, but despite


that success I still find from my talks with firms that there is a feeling of discouragement as a result of all the quota and exchange difficulties they meet with in the export trade. In my position I should not try in any way to minimise the difficulties that the exporter meets with, but though foreign propaganda would have the world believe that we are a decadent country, I believe, like the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hamilton

Kerr), that there are still great reserves of energy, initiative and skill in this country, and that if we can encourage our people to make a united effort, that united effort will succeed in restoring our export trade.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 197; Noes, 121.

Division 11.]
AYES.
[7.30 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Fleming, E. L.
Peters, Dr. S. J.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Petherick, M.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Furness, S. N.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Pilkington, R.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Gower, Sir R. V
Porritt, R. W.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Procter, Major H. A.


Balniel, Lord
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Radford, E. A.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbre, W.)
Ramsbotham, H.


Bartlett, C. V. O.
Grimston, R. V.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Bernays, R. H.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Beothby, R. J. G.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Bassom, A. C.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Brass, Sir W.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Rowlands, G.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Hepworth, J.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Higgs, W. F.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Salmon, Sir I.


Butcher, H. W.
Hopkinson, A.
Salt, E. W.


Carver, Major W. H.
Harsbrugh, Florence
Samuel, M. R. A.


Cary, R. A.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Channon, H.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Schuster, Sir G. E.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hunter, T.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Hutchinson, G. C.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Simmonds, O. E.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Joel, D. J. B.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Cotton, Major W. P.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Colman, N. C. D.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)


Cooke. J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Kimball, L.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Lamb, Sir J Q.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Cox, Trevor
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Leech, Sir J. W.
Spans, W. P.


Critchtey, A.
Lees-Jonas, J.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Storey, S.


Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Levy, T.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Lindsay, K. M.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cross, R. H.
Loftus, P. C.
Tacker, Sir R. I.


Crossley, A. C.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Cruddas, Col. B.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Davidson, Viscountess
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


De Chair, S. S.
McKie, J. H.
Touche, G. C.


Da la Bère, R.
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Turton, R. H.


Denville, Alfred
Markham, S. F.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Dodd, J. S.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Dower, Major A. V. G.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Drewe, C.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Moreing, A. C.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Eastwood, J. F.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Ellis, Sir G.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Munro, P.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Emery, J. F.
Nall, Sir J.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Haven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Emrys-Evens, P. V.
O'Connor, Sir Terenee J.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Errington, E.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh



Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Owen, Major G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Everard, W. L.
Patrick, C. M.
Mr. Sutcliffe and Mr. H. W. Kerr.


Fildes, Sir H.
Perkins, W. R. D.





NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Groves, T. E.
Oliver, G. H.


Adamson, W. M.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Parker, J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Parkinson, J. A.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hardie, Agnes
Pearson, A.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Heyday, A.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Bonfield, J. W.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Pritt, D. N.


Barnes, A. J.
Henderson, T. (Tradesten)
Ridtey, G.


Barr, J.
Hicks, E. G.
Riley, B.


Bellenger, F. J.
Hopkin, D.
Ritson, J.


Bann, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Benson, G.
John, W.
Sanders, W. S.


Bevan, A.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Sexton. T. M.


Bromfield, W.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Shinwell, E.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Kelly, W. T.
Silkin, L.


Buchanan, G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Simpson, F. B.


Cape, T.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Chater, D.
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cluse, W. S.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Lathan, G.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cocks, F. S.
Lawson, J. J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Collindridge, F.
Leach, W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cove, W. G.
Lee, F.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Daggar, G.
Leonard, W.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Dalton, H.
Leslie, J. R.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Logan, D. G.
Thorne, W.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lunn, W.
Thurtle, E.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Tinker, J. J.


Day, H.
McEntee, V. La T.
Viant, S. P.


Dobbie, W.
Maclean, N.
Watson, W. McL.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Westwood, J.


Ede, J. C.
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Marshall, F.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Frankel, D.
Mathers, G.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Gallecher, W.
Messer, F.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Gardner, B. W.
Montague, F.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)



Grenfell, D. R.
Muff, G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Silverman and Mr. Burke.


Question put, and agreed to.

Main Question again proposed.

Mr. Tinker: Mr. Tinker rose—

It being after Half-past Seven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

MEDICAL SERVICES IN CIVIL DEFENCE.

7.42 p.m.

Sir Francis Fremantle: I beg to move,
That this House recognises the call upon medical services in case of air-raids as a cardinal factor in such an emergency; is of opinion that a complete and detailed scheme is required providing for the medical and auxiliary personnel, the institutions, equipment, communications, and transport entailed; and demands that both policy and administration shall be devised without delay and carried out under responsible co-operation between the British Medical Association and other representatives of the medical profession and of the hospitals, with the several Government Departments concerned.
I now asked the House to turn from questions relating to the defence of our export trade to the defence necessary in case of air raids, and to consider what may be necessary in regard to the medical services in the defence of this country.

All are concerned in this question of civil defence. I will simply take two recent terrible experiences to illustrate the air developments in warfare. We read of how a single shell fell upon Shanghai killed 200 people and inflicted injuries upon innumerable others, and of how, on the other hand, in Madrid at one time 200 shells fell upon the city resulting in the killing of only four persons and in only 13 people being injured. Why was this the case in Madrid? Because the sufferings that the people had undergone had taught them how to protect themselves, and the lesson had been effective. In Shanghai the people had not learned how to protect themselves when the danger of air bombing was upon them. In the recent crisis we had a test, and in my own county of Hertfordshire we had the advantage of a test and a black-out upon a recent Saturday night, which was fortunately chosen to synchronise with the feast of 5th November. The black-out was complete in Hertfordshire but not outside, and the illuminations in the surrounding counties gave directions to the aircraft by which they could have wiped out Hertfordshire. A


test was made at the same time of the air-raid precautions all through the county, and many different deficiencies, overlapping and difficulties were found, to which I wish to direct attention.
I hope that we shall have a useful and constructive Debate. I propose to make no accusations against those who may or may not have been responsible for the deficiencies, but I wish to use those deficiencies as an index to those parts of our defences to which attention must now be paid. In this sense I apologise for the length of the Motion, which is in three parts. In the first part I contend that we have to recognise the medical services as a cardinal factor. As I originally worded the Motion I went so far as to say that they were the chief factor, but in order not to claim priority, I say that they are a cardinal factor in civilian defence. In the circumstances the Motion says that a scheme should be devised with four ingredients which are, first, the personnel of the medical and auxiliary services; secondly, the institutions and their equipment; thirdly, the method of communication between different parts of the medical services and the civilian defence service; and, fourthly, the ambulance service for the transport of the wounded. The third part of the Motion submits a definite method of devising and administering the work of the medical services effectively.
There is no intention in this Motion of wishing to put arguments forward for the glorification of the medical profession or to raise the profession above the proper position it should occupy in civil defence. I wish only to suggest that, owing to the actual requirements of the case and the experience of previous and present wars, and owing to the training and the services of the medical profession, there is a definite position which they must be given, not only incidentally but responsibly, in the whole organisation. The intention and desire of the medical profession and the auxiliary services is to contribute of their best to the national advantage.
My own first experience, after I left the hospital, was as a civil surgeon in South Africa. At the beginning a few of us were reinforcing the Army Medical Staff at Cape. Town at the first big general hospital of the war. The wounded

came down from the first three battles of the war, at Elandslaagte, the Modder River and Belmont. The three ambulance trains were crammed, and, in addition to there being an insufficient staff, both of nurses and of medical men, no proper accommodation had been arranged. I do not wish to go further into history except to say that, as a result of the appalling want of preparation and planning, the then Secretary of State for War, Mr. Brodrick, appointed a Departmental Committee on the Reorganisation of the Army Medical Services. On that committee I was privileged to serve as an assistant secretary, and the effects of the equipment, organisation and administration which resulted from its recommendations were seen in the late War. In the late War we had an organisation which was not only complete for the Expeditionary Force as sent out, but was capable of extension as the need arose. The lesson of that bit of history is that you require planning for definite requirements on the basis of definite experience.
You also want an opening of the eyes of those people, whether in authority or otherwise, who look upon the medical service as being only, so to speak, a technical extra. That happened at the War Office in the last century. When Sir Garnet Wolseley on coming back from his expedition in Egypt, was asked why he had given no decorations and honours to medical officers, he replied, "Because they had nothing to do; our troops were so healthy." It was only after he was gone, and a fresh generation had arisen, that it was recognised that the health of the Army was of first importance, and depended upon the medical officers, whose job it was, and that they were entitled to a good deal of credit for it afterwards. The same thing has to be done now. The medical services must be given their proper position.
What is their position in this matter of civil defence? I am certain that under the Home Office the Under-Secretary and his staff and the local authorities did their very best. It is extraordinary what was done during that time. They had an almost inconceivable task, with unknown requirements. The medical officer, Major Blackmore, died at his post as a result of overwork. He ought to have been given help, but he was understaffed. Moreover, the great difficulty of all the authorities and all the people engaged


on this job was the fact that the public were perfectly tepid on the subject until September. They might read the papers and talk about it, but in the main people were not going to have their summer holidays interfered with by A.R.P.; that, they said, was the job of the Home Office, the local authorities and so on. You could not get a move on in that respect. As a whole, the public were tepid until they suddenly came back from their holidays in September, and the whole country recognised what was the situation against which preparations had to be made.
The Medical Officer of Health to the London County Council the other day described in one of the medical papers his own experience. He said that since 1930 he had sat on five committees on the subject, under three Government Departments. In the case of the first four Committees, nothing, so far as he knew, seemed to have been done; the Committees seemed to terminate ineffectively. Only the last one, the Wilson Committee, moved effectively, presenting its interim report in the middle of July. The Ministry of Health would naturally be expected to take the main part, but at first, I understand, they were given no part. Afterwards, certain responsibilities were transferred one by one to the Minsitry of Health. In June of this year a special branch was created to deal with the emergency medical services, and Dr. Hebb, the Director-General of Medical Services at the Ministry of Pensions, was transferred to it for the time being. But still the fact passed without any attention that they were understaffed. They ought to have had a considerable increase of staff, and much remained to be done. The difficulties and deficiencies were due a good deal to understaffing. It is naturally difficult in the ordinary way of any business, whether Government or otherwise, to know when is the right time to increase staff, and when is the proper time to rely upon keen, energetic officials to overwork themselves by working overtime. It is unquestionable that they were, and still are, understaffed, and perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary may have something to say on that subject if he takes part in the Debate, as I hope he will.
Meanwhile, the Committee of Imperial Defence have asked the British Medical

Association, as the main body representing the medical profession, to inquire into the scope of the medical services available. That they did over 18 months ago. We have been talking a good deal in this House on the question of a national register, but I am proud to think that my own profession took the bit between its teeth and started a register of its own members, at its own expense, with a very complete questionnaire, no less than 18 months ago, in May, 1937. But a register is useless unless it is kept up to date. Even doctors move house sometimes; the ordinary population moves a great deal more. Even doctors change their minds as to what they want to do, what they can do, and what they are best fitted to do. For the register to be of any use, it must be revised every year. The Government came forward very handsomely, and have, as I understand, undertaken the cost of revision of the register, which amounts, I think, to something like £500 in England and £200 in Scotland for the year. The result of the questionnaire sent out by the responsible voluntary body of the medical profession is to show that 43,000 doctors have undertaken to serve, stating their equipment and experience, and 95 per cent. of them are prepared to give their services in one way or another. It includes such demands as were made at the time, and may be made in the future, on the War Office. But, although it is agreed that the Government Departments and the hospitals should be staffed, in case of an air raid, only through this register and according to this register, irregular applications from some Departments and officials still continue to be made, indicating that that part of the position has not yet been made generally known and understood.
Of all the difficulties that arose when the crisis came, perhaps not the least in this organisation was the uncertainty as to the actual position and equipment of, and the demands that would be made on, the first-aid posts. It is recognised that in the case of casualties, as in the field in a war, you must first of all have some kind of collecting stations, some kind of first-aid posts, where patients can be sorted out and sent on to the casualty clearing stations, as they are called, where they receive primary treatment and from which they are sent on to base hospitals. The position in London, as


far as I can make out, was that, according to the Home Office, first-aid posts were not to have any medical officer at all; they were to be lay posts, from which the patients would be sent on to such of the general hospitals as had been earmarked for the purpose and cleared of their ordinary patients so that they might be used as clearing stations, which might be working day and night or might have nothing to do at all. The patients coming to them would be sent on by ambulance to base hospitals at some distance out in the country.
What was to be the position of the first-aid posts where no medical officers were to be available? Those medical men who had had experience of the late crisis, as well as those who had previously thought over the matter theoretically, were almost unanimously of opinion that first-aid posts would be perfectly useless without a medical officer. If there were no medical officer, all that could be done, after the administration of sal volatile, alcohol of one kind or another, and the application of bandages, would be to send the patients on, and the result would be that the casualty clearly stations would be absolutely blocked up with a great mass of perfectly minor cases. It must be remembered, too, that in an air raid you might not only have numbers of the civil population wounded, but you might have a large number of medical cases among the civil population—cases of nervous breakdown, hysteria, mania, and mental cases—with which it would be very difficult to deal. Moreover, some of the primary cases might need morphia, which you could not allow lay people to administer. Last week, at a meeting of the Association of County Medical Officers of Health, the county medical officer of one of the chief home counties was absolutely definite in his view that you must have medical men at these first-aid posts.
It is all very well to say that you must have this, that and the other, but the question is, can you have them? Is the supply sufficient? I am sure it would be in London, but the question is whether it would be elsewhere. We had the Home Office laying down what was required, and saying that the first-aid post had nothing to do with the Ministry of Health, while the Ministry of Health have charge

of the hospitals and the medical personnel. That is the reason for the need for co-operation between these two Departments and the medical profession. At a meeting of the Hampstead Branch of the British Medical Association last week, the same opinion emerged—that it is perfectly useless to have first-aid posts without medical officers. In a military system, you always have medical officers at first-aid posts. It is wrong to think that these first-aid posts must necessarily be static, requiring the presence of a medical man night and day. Someone should be in charge, preferably a medical man in practice in the neighbourhood, who could run in and out and be available. Many local authorities at the time of the crisis decided that there should be medical officers at their first-aid posts, and therefore there was great confusion. Why should the first-aid posts be under the Home Office, while ambulances, stretcher squads, casualty clearing stations and hospitals are all under the Ministry of Health? That seems to be a very wrong proposition. The Prime Minister said in this House, on 1st November:
We have the Home Office, dealing with, perhaps, the major part of the work, especially police work, as well as fire brigades, gas-masks and so forth. Then we have the Ministry of Health, which is in close touch with local authorities, and is also responsible for the medical services, including nursing and ambulance provision."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st November, 1938; col. 84, Vol. 340.]
To this has now been added the whole subject of evacuation, with which I do not propose to deal to-night. This will require co-operation between these two Departments and the medical profession. The position is so serious that the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Surgeons together took 'a joint deputation to the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence on the 8th of this month. The Minister was attended by representatives of no fewer than eight Departments, and he had a very full statement put before him by Sir Kaye le Fleming. This showed that the British Medical Association had established a central emergency committee, with associated committees of reference of the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Surgeons, this central emergency committee being the supply organisation—the organisation for the supply of medical


services. But they still wanted some body to co-ordinate the actual demand that they would have to meet. In his reply, the Minister said that this was of obvious importance, and everyone would agree with it. It would be the Ministry of Health, and to some extent the Home Office, which would take charge of these discussions. We got the promise from the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence that there would be this coordinating committee. I hope that that will be the case, because it is very seriously needed.
In considering the medical services, the position of the medical officer of health, especially in the countryside, is commonly forgotten. His position is very difficult. He has still to be in charge of the sanitary services. These do not only include the material services, which come under the surveyors and engineers but which he has to see are sufficient from the health point of view. He is also responsible for the personal services in schools and in county hospitals, and for the whole Poor Law system. This system would be much affected in an air raid. On the question of evacuation, the medical officer for one county told me personally that in one of his villages he recently had to close the school because of a virulent outbreak of diphtheria, yet he was informed that 100 children were to be evacuated from that village. That shows the lack of any proper scheme for co-ordination.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): Can my hon. Friend give me the name of that place?

Sir F. Fremantle: I will tell it to my hon. Friend privately when I have leave to divulge it. I think it will be a little awkward, possibly, for the medical officer in charge. In connection with air-raid precautions, this medical officer of health, according to the air-raid handbook, is the controlling official of first-aid parties, first-aid posts and ambulances. He has to do this in addition to his ordinary work. What is his position as controlling officer for nine districts? And what is his status in regard to the voluntary hospitals, the municipal and auxiliary hospitals, and the training and staffing of these? What is the position in connection with the St. John Ambulance Brigade and the Red Cross Societies? That has to be made

clear. We are told that in Madrid the people, of their own initiative, insisted on digging trenches in the streets, regardless of the water mains, sewers and all the rest. Just think what complications that brings to the medical services.
So I emphasise the three different parts of my Motion. The first part points out that the health services are a cardinal factor. Think of a bomb falling in the midst of a congested population. The first thing people think of is, Where is the doctor? He will be called for on every side, with the nurses, the ambulances and the first-aid men. The medical services are not merely a factor, but a cardinal factor, in not only treating the people, but in giving confidence—for it is that that the doctor is able to do better than anyone else, among his own flock. The Committee on Evacuation, presided over by the present Lord Privy Seal, reported in July, and in their report they made no mention of health services, except for two lines only. I asked the Lord Privy Seal—that was before he was Lord Privy Seal—what was to be done with the doctors, and he said, "Oh, they will be brought in by the local authorities." They will be brought in, as if they were menials, to clear up the mess.
The position taken up in this Motion is, clearly and definitely, that looking at the whole position and the requirements of the case, if the medical services are a cardinal factor, medical men will have to play the chief part in co-ordinating these services, the chief part in administering them, the chief part in organising them, and the chief part, or, at any rate, a cardinal part, in devising them from the very first. My Motion says that the scheme must be complete, and it must be detailed. There must be, first of all, the medical personnel, which will include also retired men up to a certain point. Many retired men have written to me to say they are thirsting to play their part, and yet they have no part given to them. They will be an extraordinarily useful factor in the situation. So will medical students. Yet the position in regard to the students is difficult, because we have to keep up medical education, otherwise we would be creating difficulties for the physicians and surgeons on the staffs of the hospitals.
Then there is the question of auxiliary personnel. I have referred to the difficulty of co-ordinating the St. John


Ambulance Brigades and the Red Cross. In a village I know well, a medical man from a neighbouring town, who was interested in the St. John Ambulance, overbore the local Red Cross lady and her helpers in the village and insisted on bringing in his own ambulance service from outside. The nurses, dispensers, laboratory workers, clerks, stretcher-bearers and messengers must all come in as an essential part of the organisation. They cannot be brought in as a crowd. They have to be brought in with proper organisation. We come to the question of institutions and equipment. I am leaving it to my hon. Friend who will second the Motion and my hon. and gallant Friend opposite to deal with that. They will have a great deal to say about it. The question of communications is too often forgotten. In an air raid the medical services will be powerless if they are not able to communicate with medical men, to find out where to send patients and where the ambulances are. If the telegraph wires and telephones are all broken down it will be necessary to have boys and girls to go about, either on foot or on bicycles, and carry on. There will also have to be commandeering of private cars, which could be used to some extent without adaptation, and would to some extent require adaptation.
There must be a proper organisation. The policy and the administration must be devised and carried out under responsible direction. It means that there must be a responsible co-operation in which the bodies concerned with this committee that has been suggested can undertake the responsibility of devising this, that and the other, instead of the Ministers and the Government Departments having to be responsible. There must be this coordination. Hospitals must be completely represented, together with the medical profession, all the Government Departments concerned and the local authorities. Cases have come to light where the Services, quite naturally from the point of view of their traditions, made their demands regardless of everybody else. There was one case of a medical man being engaged by the local military unit to inspect the troops in a town 10 miles away from his own surgery, although in that town there were several doctors who could have done the work just as well. That kind of thing cannot be allowed.

Yet we have to fit in the organisation of the Territorial services with this civil employment. These units now being built up—anti-aircraft units, searchlight units, and so on—all over the country, will all have to have their own medical officers probably, unless we have proper co-ordination regardless of the greater requirements of civil defence.
I end by referring to the fact which appeals to so many of us who were responsible members of the medical profession during the Great War, namely, that there was practically no breakdown in the medical services on the Western Front. When the soldier went out on behalf of us all and over the top, he knew that if he was wounded and got through he would be properly cared for. From the start right through to "Blighty" and to the finish this knowledge was of the first importance to the morale of the troops and to the confidence of the public at home. This is an essential part of our defence arrangements. It is our object to be prepared, and to be known to be prepared. The medical profession offer their fullest help. They ask for powers to enable them to do their work properly, and then success may be assured.

8.16 p.m.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: I beg to second the Motion.
Like my hon. Friend who moved the Motion, I may have some critical words to say in regard to the Government and the general organisation of medical services, and I am glad to notice my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal is on the Front Bench, in addition to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health. My criticisms will be criticisms of a friendly character, and, I hope, constructive. I may have to ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary a number of questions which possibly he may not be able to answer tonight, but he may give the answers to them at a later date. I think that all Governments in the main base their preparations for war on the basis of the last war, but every war is different from a previous war. The strategists themselves do not seem to be able to tell us exactly what will happen in the next war, if we are unfortunate enough to have a war. They are like the economists; they differ. [Interruption.] And doctors too, I have no doubt.
There is one thing of which we may be quite sure—I think all strategists agree—and that is, that however well organised our defensive measures may be in the air, a certain amount of bombardment will take place, that a certain number of bombers will get through, and there will undoubtedly be casualties. The estimates of casualties vary from thousands to hundreds of thousands. We do not know what they are likely to be, but we are sure of the one fact that there will be a large number of casualties in our great centres of population. Not only will there be casualties, but there will also be cases, as my hon. Friend said, of illnesses of a diverse character, physical and mental, dependent upon the repercussions of this type of intensive warfare which we visualise, not only in its effects on those in the immediate area of the bombardment but also in its effects upon those who have to be evacuated from those areas and who are leading abnormal lives in entirely abnormal conditions.
We have not only to deal with the problem on the humanitarian ground of actually saving lives in war, but we have to deal with it on a more comprehensive basis of helping the moral of our nation and our people in time of emergency. Therefore, it is important that we should see that our medical, nursing and ancillary services are so well organised beforehand that there will be no serious hitch when the time comes. I may say without any undue boasting—I am merely stating a simple fact—that on the whole, in the last War, from 1914 to 1918, the medical services both in the line and behind the line were efficient. I think that that part of our organisation during the last War came out of the great ordeal with as little criticism and comment as any part of the organisation. During the last War I was a medical officer both in the base hospital and in the field ambulance, as well as medical officer of a battalion in the line, so that I saw something during those four years of the casualties in their various aspects. Although, as I said before, casualties in the next war will not be of the same character, the experience of the past may guide us to some extent.
The first question I want to ask my hon. Friend—it has been touched upon by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle)—relates to the evacuation of the wounded and the sick,

the helpless persons. Have any plans been decided upon by the Government with regard to aid posts? Where are they to be? Are they to be in trenches in the parks of London or in annexes to the big hospitals, or are they to be, where I consider they ought to be, in concrete underground shelters? It has been mentioned, according to the Home Office, that no medical officers are supposed to be in charge of these aid posts. If that is still the situation there ought to be reconsideration of that point of view. It is vital that the immediate casualties, diversified in character as they will be, some of them simple and some of them very grave, should be segregated, and they can be segregated only by a medical man who is acquainted with the wounds. Mild cases of shell-shock and minor injuries, and all kinds of illness of a diverse and minor character will tend to block the main hospitals in London. Many of these cases could be sent home right away because their injuries were not of a sufficiently serious character as to require detention in hospital. I hope that we shall have some of these concrete underground shelters as aid posts, as I visualise a very difficult time for anybody who is in charge of aid posts in the open or in places where large masses of wounded are congregated, for they are likely to be bombed from the air. I trust that this part of the policy has been decided upon.
There is the serious question of the position of hospitals in London and in other big cities. We know that, generally speaking, our voluntary and municipal hospitals are under separate management. In such places as Manchester and Oxford there is a joint management of both voluntary and municipal hospitals, with one central governing body, which is a very good idea. In London, as far as I understand, 15 voluntary hospitals and 19 municipal hospitals have been earmarked for use as casualty clearing stations. All the remaining hospitals, a large number of voluntary hospitals, including some of the big teaching hospitals, tuberculosis hospitals, children's hospitals and maternity hospitals, are to carry on as usual. That was the policy until recently and I do not know whether it has been changed.
I take the view that it is extremely questionable whether, in the event of an intensive bombardment of London or any


big city, we ought to keep any ordinary cases of sickness in the hospitals. What would be the position of any Member of this House or any person outside who was ill in a London hospital which was the centre probably of day-to-day and night-to-night bombardment? I hope the policy will be adopted, definitely and clearly, that hospitals in London, of whatever kind, unless they are clearly outside the radius of possible bombardment—and I do not know what place would be outside the radius of possible bombardment in the Metropolis—ought to evacuate all their sick to their homes, if they can be evacuated, or to hospitals in the interior of the country.
On the boards of management of hospitals there is very serious concern and misgiving at the present time in regard to their position. I have been reading resolutions from various hospitals, and I will give a few quotations to indicate what is felt. Here is a report from a hospital not very far from London:
Since the passing of the international crisis my committe9 have been reviewing the resources of the hospital in the event of a similar crisis occurring in the future, and they feel rather unhappy about the haphazard instructions which were received from time to time regarding the Ministry of Health's accommodation requirements. It is felt that the Ministry of Health should prepare a plan of requirements which would he necessary if hospitals are to be brought into any scheme in connection with home defences.
Here is a letter from a hospital in Scotland:
Do you think that the Government have reached any conclusion as to what they expect from large hospitals such as this? Looking hack on the chaotic conditions which would certainly have followed a declaration of war, one hopes that if any such a crisis arises again we shall know our line of action more precisely than last month.
Here is a letter from a big hospital in the north of England:
Our great difficulty was to discover what was expected of us. When the crisis arose, nothing had been decided; the medical officer had no instructions, while no preparations had been made for his temporary first-aid hospital to which the staff here was to be transferred further inland. What would be most appreciated is a definite lead, or instruction, as to what is expected of this hospital in any future emergency.'
Here is the view expressed with regard to a hospital which concerns us very much in this House. It is a hospital in the heart of Westminster—the Westminster

Hospital. If any of us in this House were injured by a bomb, I take it that it is to Westminster Hospital we should be sent, either from this House or from its immediate neighbourhood. I mention this case particularly because this happens to be the centre of the seat of Government, with all its ramifications round about. The secretary of Westminster Hospital said recently:
The greatest difficulty had been the complete lack of any co-ordination between the Ministry of Health, the Home Office and the local authority. They have been told that there might be queues outside the hospital up to thousands in number, yet no directions appeared to have been given to the police or to the local authority for the proper control or temporary accommodation of the crowds seeking admission. Representations had since been made to the Home Office by the hospital direct and through the King's Fund. Still, however, there had been no information as to whether there would be a single co-ordinating body to direct the various schemes.
He goes on to say that:
He questioned whether it would be wise policy for a hospital in such a vulnerable position as the Westminster to be called upon to admit to its wards up to 50 per cent. above normal capacity, and whether, indeed, it would be wise to fill a hospital in such an area with casualties.
That gives an indication of what some of the hospital authorities feel.
Then there is the question of the operating theatres in the clearing hospitals. Are any preparations being made to have these operating theatres underground? One can visualise the position of an operating theatre in a hospital above ground, where the surgeons were performing an operation during a bombardment. Steps ought to be taken to see that some of these operating theatres are placed underground. The Home Office appointed a committee which presented an interim report a few months ago. The report has not been published, and I do not know why that is so. It would be very interesting to those who are concerned with this matter, and to a very large number of people, if we could have that report. Much good work has been done, by Dr. Hebb, and I think the public would be interested to see what is stated in the report. The personnel of the committee was a very able one and it did really good work.
In connection with the hospitals there is one further point which is important, although it may seem a small matter. I refer to the question of finance. In the


last crisis in September many of the orders given by hospitals were without legal sanction. Their staffs acted often without regard to the hospital's charter. Many hospitals obtained surgical and other equipment which normally they do not need, and since they work on such narrow margins the King Edward Hospital Fund for London made a distribution of £100,000 in advance of this year's grant.
I should like to say a few words about the equipment of the hospitals. Are they adequately equipped, and is the country adequately equipped in regard to drugs, dressing, blankets and so forth, for an emergency? I have a hospital in my constituency the medical officer of which wrote to me a short time ago:
Having been asked on the Tuesday before the zero hour"—
that would be round about black Wednesday, the 28th September—
to be ready to equip a building as a hospital at 12 hours' notice, I decided to order in preparation for this, dressings, drugs, etc., equivalent to two years stocks for this sanatorium. By this means I should be ready to start the hospital in case of war, but none of the firms written to—wholesalers I always dealt with—could supply me. All were sold out; they would take my order and deliver in rotation. Certain of the orders I cancelled; others I let stand. No delivery has yet been made, a fortnight later. Morphia was ordered from one of our biggest wholesale and retail firms of manufacturing chemists. None was available. They wrote me they had built up their stocks; but the demand was unprecedented and could not have been foreseen.
Since then I have had from the Ministry a reply which gives me some assurance with regard to the provision of medical supplies, and I hope that we may regard the position as rather more satisfactory than it was a few months ago. I should like to make one suggestion. Why not make it compulsory for every motorist to carry surgical dressings, a pocket dressing? It would be useful in times of peace in case of an accident and would be a great help in time of war. It is perfectly easy to do this and it would involve no labour. Then there is the question of stretchers. We want hundreds and thousands more than we have, and they should be of a uniform pattern. Outside a hospital now you will see stretchers of all patterns, hospital stretchers, police stretchers and private stretchers, all varying in size and some in shape. We ought to have some assurance on this point,

especially as there is the important question of transport from the hospitals in London and the great cities to safer places in the country. Then are motor ambulance drivers being trained to drive with their gas masks on and their lights dim? That is not so easy as it would appear to be, and I trust that a large number of these drivers are being trained so as to be ready for that emergency.
I should like to see more use made of our waterway systems. Is any use to be made of the Thames for the transport of people? There are many steam launches on the Thames going up as far as Oxford, and they can carry from 200 to 250 people. They could be converted into hospital launches, and in that way you could daily evacuate from London, in greater safety than you can along the roads and railways, thousands of injured people. After all, the River Thames is going to be about the safest place at a time of bombardment. It may be a mark for the bomber but it will not be a target. There is no incendiary bomb made which can set the Thames on fire, as far as I know, and I think the high explosive bomb will not do so much damage when it is dropped in water. Then there is the Grand Junction Canal from Brentford right up to the Midlands, which might be used to carry people into regions which are safer, and it will be safer to do this by canal than by the roads and railways.
I think that on the whole the Medical Association has done very well in the way of organising personnel. It has a register which the Government might well envy, and 95 per cent. of the work has been done by the officials working late into the night. It is essential that there should be no waste of personnel. The staffs of hospitals should know whether they will be wanted in the hospitals, in the Territorial service or in their own civilian occupations, and there should be a mobilised force of doctors which could be transferred to any centre which has suffered intensive bombardment. In other ways overlapping can be avoided. Then as to medical students; are you going to keep them in London or send them into the country to complete their course and become fully qualified?
I hope the Government are taking steps to organise the medical services. The question of evacuation depends upon it I know cases where it was proposed to,


send children to be billeted on people many of whom were unsuited in many ways to have charge of children. I could name three bachelors who were to have had children billeted upon them. My hon. Friend who moved the Motion is a bachelor. I wonder how he would like to have had three children billeted upon him without any means of looking after them. I think children should be billeted largely in hospitals and be under proper maintenance and supervision. I hope that the Government are not losing sight of the importance of these medical services, because in their ramifications they have a most direct consequence on the lives of our people in the time of emergency which we are visualising, but which we hope will never develop. There is a vast body of medical service at the disposal of the nation and of the Government. Many are asking in what capacity they can serve. I want the Government not only to organise but to give the appearance of organising in order to stimulate this vast body of people who want to do what they can. It may mean all the difference between victory and defeat in a war.

8.44 P.m.

Colonel Nathan: My hon. Friends who have proposed and seconded this Motion are distinguished medical men. I am a layman. I do not know whether they have had the experience of organising a hospital to meet the recent crisis. I have had that experience. I had it by reason of the fact that I was chairman, and still am, of the Air-Raid Precautions Committee of the Westminster Hospital to which the hon. Member has referred, and am chairman of another hospital not very far away, the Infants Hospital in Vincent Square. Both those hospitals were detailed as Grade A casualty clearing stations for adults during the recent crisis, and a main part of the responsibility for organising them for that purpose fell upon my shoulders. I do not now speak in the name or by the authority of any hospital. I say that because the hon. Member quoted a passage from a statement made by the very able and experienced secretary to the Westminster Hospital as if that statement were made by him either on behalf of the hospital or in his capacity as Secretary to it. I think the hon. Member will find that, in fact, it was

part of a contribution—and a most valuable one—that was made to a discussion at a meeting of hospital administrative officers. I speak merely for myself, basing my observations upon my actual experience.
I do not propose to embark upon any controversy, for I do not think this is a subject which at this moment requires very much argument. My object is to give a few pointers, based upon experience, to which the attention of the Government might well be directed in connection with these matters. I would add that I speak with experience in London alone, which of course presents its own special, peculiar, and most difficult problems. Nor am I able to speak from any standpoint save that of the two voluntary hospitals with which I have been closely connected in this matter.
The first requirement is that the hospital should know with whom it has to communicate and from whom its orders are to come. I suppose this problem may be regarded in this way, that it begins at the first-aid post and ends in the mortuary. In the recent crisis, the first-aid posts and the mortuaries came under the aegis of the local authority. The hospital emergency administration in general came under the Ministry of Health, but in regard to gas it came under the Home Office. It was indeed impossible for those who had responsibilities in the matter to make quite sure that they were in touch with the right authority. All possible assistance was given, after the initial stages of the crisis, by Colonel Hebb and his assistant for London, Dr. Dobbie, of the Emergency Services. No words of praise are too high for the devotion which they gave to their arduous and responsible duties. But whoever the persons in charge may be, the hospitals must know with whom they are to communicate. Therefore, the first suggestion I make to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, who is to reply to this Debate, is that the hospital services should be told well beforehand from whom they may expect to receive instructions and guidance. I make the suggestion that, whatever inter-Departmental arrangements there may be, there should be one authority, and one authority only, with whom the hospitals should communicate.
I agree entirely with the remarks about first-aid posts made by the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) and the hon. Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones). I agree with the hon. Member for Denbigh, who seconded the Motion, that it is indispensable, if time will allow, that the first-aid posts should be in places where at least they are safe and able to carry on their functions as first-aid posts. I agree with both the hon. Members that it is fundamental that there must be medical men in charge of those posts. I am not quite sure from where the medical men for these posts are to come. I think the Parliamentary Secretary will have to look into that matter. They cannot come from the hospitals, because the hospitals cannot spare them; they will want all, and more than all, the staff they already have. Both hon. Members referred to the register of the British Medical Association. Undoubtedly, that is a most valuable piece of work, but it is to be noted that when the crisis actually arose, the register was not of such immediate use as might have been expected; for I was informed, on making inquiries from the Emergency Services Administration at the Ministry of Health, when I wanted additional staff for one of my hospitals, that the register would not be operative for at least a fortnight after any crisis arose. It is imperative that, if the register is to be really effective, it should be operative from the moment the crisis arises, and that there should be no gap.
The first fortnight or the first month will be particularly vital from the point of view of protecting the morale of the people. We are dealing with the unknown. If we should find ourselves at war, it will be in entirely unknown conditions and there will be many completely unforeseeable factors. We have to make certain assumptions. We must make the assumption that there will be air raids and casualties, but we must not make the assumption, in considering this matter, that the air raids will be overwhelming and that it will be impossible to deal with the casualties; for no organisation could deal with that situation and it would have to be dealt with, if and when it arose, in the circumstances of the time, and possibly under conditions of martial law. We have to contemplate a situation in which the area of destruction and the amount of casualties are manageable, and

all we can expect to do is to organise ahead on that basis. I do not think we can organise ahead for more than the preliminary stages. We shall have to learn by experience. Having some responsibility as far as hospitals are concerned in the matter, I should be completely satisfied if I could see an organisation on foot which was likely to take us through six weeks of a manageable period. During those six weeks we should learn a great deal, and we should have to adapt ourselves to the new situation. I want to impress upon the Parliamentary Secretary the necessity, from the point of view of the morale of the people, for having some well-defined and well-considered service which is known to the public beforehand, so that people will know where they are going, if they should have the misfortune to become casualties, and what is going to happen to them. It is very necessary that the hospital organisation should know what it has to do in such circumstances.
We may assume that, at the time when the crisis first arises, the hospitals will have their beds full. The first thing they will have to do will be to get rid of their patients. During the recent crisis, I evacuated from the infants' hospital all but 10 of the patients who could not be evacuated. I did that having in mind the difficulty in the immediate emergency of getting either the mothers to come for their small children or finding people to take the children to their homes. I sent them to their homes at once. As far as the hospitals for adults are concerned, the position can be allowed to wait a little longer until almost the onset of a crisis. There will, of course, be walking cases—those who can be sent to their homes by means of transport which can be provided locally.
There will, however, be stretcher cases which will have to be sent outside London so as to clear those hospitals which are to be used as casualty clearing stations. It is essential that the hospitals should know where they are to look for the ambulances in which the stretcher cases are to be taken outside London. Further, they ought to know where these cases are to be taken. I do not mean geographically. I mean to what kind of place are they to be taken outside London and what is to be the relationship of that place with the main hospital in London? Are they, as was contemplated in the last crisis,


to be sent to some place outside London with tickets or labels showing the nature of the various cases and left in some general hospital, where patients from other hospitals are also to be left? Is that to be the position? I am not suggesting that it should not be the position. It is a perfectly tenable view. Or is there to be associated with each great London hospital, another hospital in the country under the same organisation which will be its satellite hospital? Is it intended that, ultimately, each great hospital will have two units, its London unit which will be primarily a casualty clearing station in the first instance, and its country unit, to which it will draft casualties, that country unit to be under the same general administration, the same medical staff, and the same nursing staff as the London hospital. Either view is tenable. The Government will have to make up their mind whether either of those courses is the correct one, and, if so, which.
Whichever course we decide to adopt, it will be necessary greatly to increase the available hospital accommodation in the country districts outside London where at present it is probably not more than sufficient to deal with the local population in normal circumstances. If large numbers of casualties are to be drafted into country districts, the local hospitals will be unable to accommodate them. I, therefore, suggest that whichever of these schemes they decide to adopt the Ministry should now set about the extension of existing hospitals or the building of new hospitals in the country. I am not suggesting that these should be of a very elaborate character, but at least they should be one-storey bungalow buildings, such as we had in many places during the late War. These could be brought into use immediately and either attached to local hospitals or made satellites of one of the great London voluntary hospitals. Unless something of that kind is done before any future crisis, I fear there will be increasing difficulty and dislocation during that crisis, and it may then be impossible to provide the necessary accommodation.
There is such a vast field to be covered in the short time at my disposal that it is difficult to select the matters which are most important, but I think my hon. Friend will agree that it is of vital importance to establish a relationship between the voluntary hospitals in London,

the most vulnerable centre, and some satellite institutions in the country to which patients can be evacuated. There is, of course, the problem of the civil population which will remain in London. However much evacuation there may be, it will make no substantial or observable difference in the requirements of the population in London for normal hospital accommodation. Citizens will still have appendicitis, and there will still be expectant mothers. What accommodation is to be provided for those who are left in London? Something must be done for them. In many hospitals—I take the Westminster Hospital as an example—beds are booked months ahead for expectant mothers and for those who are suffering from complaints requiring operations. Arrangements must be made for them somewhere. There will be illnesses referable to taking refuge from air raids. I believe that the amount of pneumonia, typhoid and other illnesses, which will result from resort to the trenches, will be very remarkable and will make great demands upon the available accommodation, apart from the casualties inflicted by shell or gas.
I think one requirement is that hospitals should not be asked to take walking cases. Those cases should be dealt with at the first-aid centres and the cases at the first-aid centres should be divided into categories, as, for instance, gas cases, shell-shock cases and surgical cases, and they should arrive at the voluntary hospitals with an indication of the result of that preliminary sorting. Otherwise it will be impossible for a hospital to deal with the great simultaneous rush that will arise immediately after a bombardment. There must be a preliminary sorting at the first-aid centre. I think it will also be necessary to have another sorting, not in the hospital itself, but in premises adjacent to the hospital, by the hospital medical staff, if there is not to be great congestion and if the hospitals of which I am speaking, in the danger centre in the most vulnerable part of London, are to be able to take, as they have been told they must be ready to take, 400 cases each per hour. A tremendous rush of cases may arise all at once as the result of a single air raid. It will require tremendous skill to cope with an emergency of that kind. I think the Government will have to take power to enable hospitals to commandeer adjacent premises for use


as sorting stations. I also ask my hon. Friend to consider whether the same thing would not have to be done in regard to gas cases. There are great disadvantages involved in bringing gas cases into a hospital until there has been complete decontamination. Otherwise there may be serious infection of other patients. I think, therefore, the Government must visualise giving power to the hospitals to acquire premises in the immediate vicinity for these purposes.
One word with regard to the medical staffs. The medical staffs of the hospitals must know, and must know well beforehand, what is to be expected of them. There are numbers of medical men on the honorary staffs of our great hospitals who are attached to more than one hospital and who have, legitimately, more than one loyalty. I will give a striking case. One of the honorary surgeons of the Westminster Hospital is also an honorary surgeon of the Infants' Hospital. Is his loyalty to be in connection with the West-minister Hospital, or it is to be in connection with the Infants' Hospital? That is the sort of question that is bound to arise. The hospitals want to know that they can keep their medical staffs, that they will have the first call upon their medical staffs, and indeed, I would add, upon their administrative staffs too, of the highest rank, and they feel that there will have to be some adjustment between the Ministry of Health and the War Office as to who is to have first call on the lay staffs and on the medical staffs. That must be decided beforehand. The hospitals must be able to lay out their plans, on whatever general scheme the Government may adopt, in the certainty that when the time comes the staffs on which they rely will be there.
There also arises the very important and grave question as to whether it is right to keep the highest skilled medical men in London at all, whether it is right, from the point of view of the country at large and of the future of the profession, and of teaching, that those who are the heads of their profession and who are on the consulting and honorary staffs of great hospitals should be risked in one hospital, so many of them, at one time. A bomb dropping on the Westminster Hospital just outside this House of Commons might destroy, not only the lives of many medical men, but an immense amount of irreplaceable special skill and medical

learning. The question arises even in regard to the nursing staff too. There is a very limited number of trained nurses available in this country, a lamentably small number. I hope and pray that they may increase, for it would be a fine profession if it were made more attractive, but can we afford to risk several hundreds of nurses in each of the great hospitals in London? May it not be necessary that they should be sent to satellite hospitals or provincial hospitals working in association with the main hospitals?
The same question arises with regard to medical schools. Are medical students to be treated as orderlies, which I think is probably the best kind of training, up to a point, which they can have in an emergency? No doubt many of them will be accelerated and given their degrees and things of that kind, but, on the whole, are the medical schools to be retained in London, or are they to be brought to an end, or are they to be transferred to the country? These things have to be considered, for the future of the medical profession is a matter of very great importance to the country as a whole.
I end as I began. It is essential that the hospitals should know with whom they are to deal, what their functions are to be, and by whom those functions are to be performed. I am not sure whether I entirely agree with all the emphasis which the hon. Member for St. Albans laid on the part played by the medical profession. Hospitals cannot be run without the assistance of the medical profession—they are an integral part of it, they are the fulcrum—but the voluntary hospital system is not run alone by the medical profession. The voluntary hospitals have their own special and dispensable functions to perform, and it is one of the functions of laymen to provide the conditions under which the medical profession can best fulfil its task. I have experienced it myself. I am a layman, I have had a main responsibility for two hospitals, and I do not think anyone will question that they were as ready as, and perhaps more ready than, any other of the voluntary hospitals in London during the recent crisis. The medical staffs of both those hospitals have told me that it was not their job, that they would not have felt able, to organise the hospitals as hospitals, though obviously all the work relating to the medical end must be in the hands of the medical staff. It is


for them to say what they want, but it is for the layman to provide it. I make that slight qualification of what my hon. Friend said, with so much of which I agreed.
We do want what I would call a war book. We want the whole plan laid out, and I hope the Ministry will consult both with the indispensable medical element and with what I venture to think the equally indispensable element, those who have experience of the lay administration of hospitals.

Sir F. Fremantle: While I recognise the extreme value of the boards of governors of hospitals, I think it is right that they should have as colleagues, and not as officials, some physicians and surgeons, perhaps recently retired from their active staff, sitting on the board, equally responsible in an equal capacity.

Colonel Nathan: What the hon. Member preaches the hospitals certainly try to practice; I entirely agree. Whether the war book that I suggest should be prepared by the hospitals and then submitted to the Ministry, or whether it should be prepared by the Ministry and then submitted to the hospitals, I am not quite sure. There are advantages in both courses. The Government know how far their authority can extend, but I do not think I am doing the Ministry an injustice when I say that it knows precious little about hospitals or about their day-to-day administration and the problems with which the voluntary hospitals are confronted. I would like the hon. Member to consider which way it should be, whether a scheme should be submitted to the Ministry or whether a scheme should be submitted by the Ministry. That there should be co-operation between the two, that there should be a war book, which should reach its final stage only after consultation between all those concerned, I am sure is vital, and I hope that even when what might seem finality has been reached there will still be a standing committee set up which may from day to day concert new proposals with the Ministry in the light of fresh experience.

9.13 p.m.

Mr. Simmonds: I should like, first of all, as chairman of the Air-Raid Precautions Committee on this side of the House, to congratulate my hon. Friend

the Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) on his initiative in raising this matter as a result of his fortune in the ballot. Many of us who have been working at this problem know of the yeoman service that he has rendered as a medical man, and we are delighted that he has had this opportunity of bringing his views before the House. Secondly, I was most interested in what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones) in seconding this Motion, and I propose to deal very briefly with one point to which he referred. He spoke of the necessity of having medical services in underground shelters. I have had the privilege of seeing something of air-raid precautionary services, not only in France and Germany, but also, under action, in Spain, and I think anybody who has studied this problem closely will agree that it is a fantastic proposition to expect that medical services can operate with even a fair degree of success in the centre of highly vulnerable and congested areas.
It is an elemental justice to those who man these medical services that the Government should immediately change their policy fundamentally by seeing that the first-aid posts and casualty clearing stations in our great centres of population are put beneath ground. There can be only two reasons why that is not done. The first is that the Government have not the faintest knowledge of We scope of the problem, but I do not believe that that is true. The second is that the Treasury have not been willing to face the expenditure that would be involved. That is an issue which my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal is facing, because in the very able report which he framed with other hon. Members just before the Recess he emphasised that shelters and evacuation must go hand in hand as the main part of any air-raid precautions scheme.
I can indicate how far we lag behind in this problem if I instance what has already been done in Paris. France has a great deal less finance available for defence than this country has, and yet this is what they have achieved. In Paris in over 30 of the districts there are large underground casualty clearing stations. These are, in general, about 12,000 square feet in area, and the smallest is about 8,000. They have about 200 beds and they can absorb about 6o people per


hour. They are all completely underground, with heavy reinforcements, and could certainly withstand direct hits by 200-lb. general purposes bombs, and in many cases by 500-lb. bombs. Those who have been under intensive bombardment will know that that degree of overhead protection places the services which are being operated in an entirely different position from services which are attempted to be operated above ground when buildings are being bombed and, as we saw time after time in Spain, when buildings round the place where bombs fell are falling down under the effects of blasts.
It is absurd for the Government to hope that in the centre of London, Birmingham, Manchester and other great cities they will in a day or two be able to operate the medical services if they propose to do it above ground in the present great hospitals. The underground casualty clearing stations in Paris are admirably planned and equipped. They have staff quarters with beds, and there will be 73 doctors, nurses and attendants in each of the stations. I will give instances of the plans which the French made before the crisis had arisen. They did not wait until a week or fortnight had passed by in utter chaos, such as we experienced here in September. On entering the casualty clearing station people are to be checked for contamination by gas and then divided into three classes, wounded, gassed and asphyxiated. At the entrance of each of these three special sections there will be an infirmary major who will check the names and addresses of each of the invalids, and a doctor who will check the section into which they should go. There will then be three further sub-divisions in each of the sections for men, women and convalescents. In the different sections full equipment is provided. It is not left in some central store, in the hope that somebody will be able to bring it to the section during the first 24 or 48 hours of an emergency. It is there now, and when I paid a visit we turned on a tap and saw that the oxygen was ready in the bottles for an emergency.
The general equipment of these stations down to the last detail is amazing. There is equipment for testing every 15 minutes the purity of the air, both inside and outside. That would enable the medical staffs to know when it was safe to

evacuate to their homes those people who had been attended to. That, clearly, is a matter of prime importance, as I am sure my hon. Friend who is interested in hospitals will know. The intake of patients cannot be maintained unless they can be evacuated as soon as the gas is clear. Another example to show the thoroughness of the organisation in Paris is that if the electricity supply fails there is, first, an auxiliary semi-Diesel plant and if that fails batteries are available. If these, too, fail all the signs and the arrows in the shelters are painted in a luminous paint. These casualty clearing stations will not only deal with those who are brought into them, but will act as pivotal points for squads with doctors and bearers to go out into the streets where there has been bombing. The doctors will have a small trailer attached to their motor cars and attention can be given to those who have been wounded on the pavement. Then they can be distributed to other hospitals or to the shelters from which the squad comes.
Lastly, and most important of all, because it struck us so vividly when we bore in mind our lack of preparation here, the name of everyone of the staff in each of these casualty clearing stations was on a list on the wall. There was no question of hoping that people would turn up if they had not some other job to do. They would be mobilised, and immediately an emergency arose they would be in the hospital at their duty. We have in this country to re-orientate our policy completely in regard to medical services in A.R.P. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and the Lord Privy Seal will work together to see not only that we have a proper scheme for these medical services, but that we put them underground in shelters so that they can work even under the most intense bombardment.

9.24 p.m.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: I am pleased to be able to speak on this question, which I believe is one of vital importance to the civilian population. I am in the curious position to-night, as are some of my hon. Friends on these benches, that we agree with almost everything that has been said on the benches opposite, particularly by the last speaker. I, too, have been in Spain and I saw the underground shelters that he mentioned, but I am afraid he is a


voice crying in the wilderness. I believe the Government will not supply those underground shelters until we have experienced what the people have experienced in Spain. I found these shelters being built in Barcelona in July, but only because it was absolutely necessary to build them in order to prevent panic. I hope the National Government will provide these shelters before a war comes. Since the crisis many people have referred rather frequently to that week as a dress rehearsal. So many mistakes have been revealed in our Defence services that I am pleased to think that that week was only in the nature of a rehearsal. I, and I believe most who have spoken to-night, think that the medical service is as important a measure of civil defence as any other service, and it is essential that it must be well equipped and that it must inspire confidence.
What surprises me about the speeches opposite is that their criticism is so mild. The organisation that the Government proposes to set up during the next war consists firstly of first-aid parties—men and women who will go out and bring casualties to the first-aid centres—a service of first-aid posts. The staffs of these posts will serve casualty clearing hospitals and these hospitals will evacuate their patients to other hospitals. That was the plan, but what happened when the crisis came? We found this plan not operating at all in many places, we found a condition of general muddle and chaos in others, and in some important casualty clearing hospitals we found a lack of equipment just where there should be extra supplies. I know of many a conscientious medical officer of health who had already earmarked his buildings for first-aid posts but was desperately looking around for personnel.
I want to tackle that problem first of all. How are we going to find our personnel? We have heard that 95 per cent. of the doctors of the country have already offered their services. We have also to remember that many doctors will be called up and, although I have a great admiration for my profession, I might suggest that probably many have offered their services thinking that that will be in lieu of conscription. Can you blame them? The doctor's outlook during the next war will be rather a grim one. He will have to leave his practice, and when

a doctor leaves his practice it means that his patients will be distributed amongst those who are left, and when he returns he will have little chance of re-forming his practice. We cannot necessarily depend on the 95 per cent. who have offered their services.
The position was put to me this morning when a surgeon from the West coast of Scotland came to see me. I mentioned that there was to be a Debate of this character to-night, and he said, "You might mention my case. I was a Naval reservist." He was probably one of the 95 per cent. who had already offered their services. During the crisis he was immediately called up. He left his practice to an older partner, who was already very much overworked, and he said, "In a small town of 40,000 inhabitants there was no medical service planned at all and we were told that within 48 hours 19,000 children were going to be sent to that small town from Glasgow." There was no medical service sufficient for the inhabitants and they had to provide for 19,000 more children. The air-raid precautions circular in June, 1936, said that personnel was to be provided by the St. John Ambulance Brigade and the Red Cross Society. I agree that these are two very excellent institutions, but they are voluntary organisations. They may function well in some districts but in others there will not be sufficient of these people to go round. The Government made another bad mistake in the matter of propaganda. It has told the public constantly about the need for air-raid wardens. In an air raid I should much prefer to know that there was an. efficient surgeon, an ambulance and a dresser waiting for me, rather than an air-raid warden somewhere round the corner.
While on the subject of personnel, there is the question of women's organisations. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Wandsworth (Colonel Nathan) deplored the fact that we have not sufficient nurses. It is not a question that the nursing profession is not effective. It is simply a question of low wages and long hours, something that could be remedied overnight if only a Bill was introduced to give nurses better conditions. I believe we have decided to recruit women in order that they shall take part in air-raid precautions. I am not being flippant when I say that, in my opinion as a woman, the National


Government has not approached this problem in the right way. We see on hoardings all over the country pictures of a very beautiful woman, with "A.R.P." underneath. That may attract the male eye, but that is not the way to improve recruiting in our women's auxiliary services. If the Government suggested to women that there was interesting work to do in first-aid stations, that would be some encouragement to improve recruiting, which I understand is very poor.
There is another thing I should like to say about these organisations. It has been mentioned that those who have been chosen to organise the women have not been chosen in the right manner, and when it has been suggested from these benches that perhaps women better qualified to organise these units should have been chosen, the Front Bench has always been inclined to laugh. I feel very seriously about this matter, because I believe that women can make a big contribution during the next war. The chief qualification of most of the organisers of the women's units seems to me to be that time has been hanging too heavily on their hands. I can assure the Under-Secretary that women who work are not inspired by that kind of leadership. It may be that the youth and inexperience of the Under-Secretary for the Home Department were so great that he did not like to say "No" when those ladies approached him, and I know full well that the Minister who is going to deal with this matter and to rectify what I believe was a cardinal error will have to be a very bold and courageous man.
I want next to deal with hospitals. A lot has been said about the necessity for evacuation, and I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Central Wandsworth that it is very necessary to have country hospitals to which cases can be sent. I wish to point out to him and to my medical colleague opposite that just as we have been reminded that women will still have babies when a war comes, so we shall also still have old people to look after, still have our civilians falling sick, and still have what we in hospitals call "our chronics," and that these people will not even be able to have the attention at home which they might expect during peace time. Where are those people to go? Also, there is the case of those who will be evacuated immediately

war is declared. In this last crisis I found many cases of hardship among patients who had been evacuated from our casualty clearly hospitals and simply sent to their homes because there was no bed for them elsewhere. Either hospitals should be built in the country immediately or some buildings should be earmarked for patients.
It was only in June, 1938, that the Home Secretary virtually acknowledged that the scheme had broken down, as h handed the whole of the medical services to the Ministry of Health, and the fact that the fantastic suggestion was made that tents should be used as casualty hospitals shows how little real understanding of this problem exists in either the Home Office or, it appears, the Ministry of Health. The British Red Cross in Abyssinia pointed out that tents were a favourite target and that there would be no protection at all against splinters, gas or blast. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will assure us to-night that there is no intention of relying upon tents during the next war. I believe that the medical services have suffered as a result of the deplorable muddle of A.R.P. As a member of a large local authority I have been shocked by the unending wrangle between the local authorities and the Government as to what proportion of money should be paid for A.R.P. Further, the Home Office has suggested that local authorities should engage air-raid precautions officers. Many local authorities which have done nothing at all about air-raid precautions have felt that immediately an air-raid precautions officer was employed all their responsibilities were over.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary what the qualifications of an air-raid precautions officer are. I can tell the House of one experience. An air-raid precautions officer was advertised for. We found that most of the applicants had one qualification only, and that is that they were old Army pensioners. They wanted to make a little extra pocket money and thought they could apply for this new profession of air-raid precautions officer, that it would only need a short course of training for a few months. In one case I was so struck by the inefficiency of the man who was chosen that I said to some of the members of the committee "How on earth did you choose this man?" and one Army man said, "Well, look here,


I understand that he spent many years in India and had a very good way with the natives." He got the job at £500 a year, but in a month's time it was felt that he was so inefficient that the poor local authority had to get someone else who knew a little more about the job. It is these men who in great part are organising the medical services in relation to civil defence.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: Was it the local authority to which the hon. Lady belongs which chose this particular man?

Dr. Summerskill: As somebody answered the Parliamentary Secretary just now, "I might tell you afterwards." Oh, if there is a suggestion that the local authority which I belong to has a Labour majority and therefore was so inefficient as to choose that man, I say, "No." Actually it has a 70 per cent. Conservative majority, and that, of course, is why the Army was favoured. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he might advise local authorities who are still choosing A.R.P. officers that they must have certain qualifications, let us say some experience of engineering or chemistry or public health work. I know that he will probably say that besides these A.R.P. officers experts were sent round to the hospitals to advise. The Home Office, I know, have consulted experts of every kind, and no expert has been asked to go outside his subject. The experts on gas have reported and fortunately have suggested some A.R.P. methods which the Government found very cheap, and therefore it has favoured them. The fire experts, too, produced a scheme. The explosive experts never dared report, because their schemes would have been too expensive, and would have included the underground shelters of which an hon. Member spoke. Out of all the schemes offered to the Home Office, the National Government have in every case chosen the cheap parts.
To continue, the experts have taught minor experts, and those minor experts have then descended upon the country and taught the poor laymen. I have attended one or two of the meetings. At one meeting a minor expert was heckled with intelligent questions and replied, "Now look here, I have been sent here to tell you and not to answer questions." What happened when these experts

approached our hospitals? Does the Parliamentary Secretary know this? A gas expert called on one of our biggest hospitals in a vulnerable area and told the superintendent that all the patients must be kept very high up. In the same month a fire expert called and told the superintendent that the patients must all be kept very low down. It is incredible. I have not yet heard what happened when the explosives expert went.
I do not want to keep the House, because I need medical attention myself to-night, and I come finally to my most serious criticism. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones) when he read those letters, which were very instructive—I wish he had raised his voice a bit more—was not more severe in his condemnation of the lack of medical services. In one hospital in London where there are 2,000 beds and which is situated in a most vulnerable spot, the medical officers were expecting the kind of thing mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Wandsworth, namely, 400 people being brought in every hour. When the crisis came, that hospital asked for a supply of instruments, cotton wool, dressings and morphia. They found great difficulty in obtaining any of them. They asked for plaster of paris, a most necessary item for the treatment of fractures, but that huge hospital, one of the most important casualty-clearing hospitals in the whole of London, could obtain only 2 cwt. of plaster of paris. They wanted something like half-a-ton. Splints have been mentioned. That hospital expected many fractures, but it could not get splints, so the medical superintendent ordered boards and set the staff to work sawing the boards down to make splints.
There is a further illustration in regard to bleaching powder. We have heard much to-night about decontamination centres. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Wandsworth said that ambulatory cases should be treated at the first-aid centres, where there should be a doctor. It is frivolous to suggest that a first-aid centre should be set up without a doctor, and at the first-aid centre there should of course be a decontamination centre. In many areas there were no decontamination centres. In the area which I have already mentioned the only decontamination centre was one which was quickly made at the casualty clearing


hospital, which meant that all the patients burned with gas would walk through the streets or be brought in ambulances to the casualty clearing hospital. And what would happen when they arrived there? I will tell the House. They would find that there was not sufficient bleaching powder there to treat them. All that that hospital could get in the week of crisis was two hundredweight, sufficient perhaps to treat a few patients in one day.
I hope that the Government will listen to these criticisms and recommendations. I agree with the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) that the medical profession are treated as technicians, but I do not mind. We are technicians. We are not all-powerful, but we do say that as technicians we know more about this problem than do the laymen, and that if we are to have a medical service which will function and without which no defence service is complete, it is necessary to co-ordinate all these different parts. Not only that, but they must be coordinated with one end in view, to give medical service in those parts where it is needed. I ask the National Government seriously to consider the national control of medical supplies. I have illustrated that such supplies are needed. They could be forthcoming if there were some kind of Government control. The supplies could be sent to the areas which needed them most. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary seriously to consider these recommendations.

9.50 p.m.

Mr. Storey: I think the House will agree that my hon. Friend has performed a useful service in calling attention to the need for a well-planned medical service in war time, particularly as such a plan, unlike many of our Defence preparations, would have a definite peacetime value. That is particularly true as regards hospitals, because such a plan could help the co-ordination of hospital services and co-operation among hospitals, which is so dear to all who want to see proper health services for the nation. That such a plan was not prepared for the recent crisis is regrettable, but it is not surprising. If we were asked, all of us would have to admit that we had not made adequate preparations for the crisis in regard to our own small responsibilities at home and in our factories. If the crisis were to happen again, it would be a

matter worthy of the greatest blame if, after the warning we have received, we again failed to be prepared and failed to take full advantage of the willingness to serve which was rendered manifest during the crisis.
If that willingness to serve were properly organised it would play a very important part in our emergency medical services. Upon the efficiency of our first-aid posts, under proper medical services, will depend whether our hospitals and our medical staffs are to be overwhelmed with minor cases or are to be unhampered and left free to deal with very serious cases. If our hospital services are to be efficiently organised, I agree that we must have some definite statement from the Government of what is required from the hospitals. That is the first essential of any plan of organisation. The Ministry of Health, on whom responsibility now lies for all hospital services, must decide at which hospitals war cases are to be treated, whether general hospitals are to be taken over wholly for war work, to what extent they are expected to carry on their ordinary work and to what extent they have to dispose of it to other hospitals in other areas. They will have to decide whether the general hospitals which are not required for war work, and the hospitals which do specialist work, shall carry on their work in dangerous areas, or whether they shall be evacuated to safer regions.
Those are only a few of the problems which the Ministry of Health must decide before any scheme can be worked out for utilising the hospital services of the country to the best advantage. Before the general policy is decided on I hope that the British Hospitals Association will be consulted and that their services will be fully utilised in working out the details of any such policy. As hon. Members who are interested in voluntary hospitals are well aware, the British Hospitals Association acting on the suggestion of the Voluntary Hospitals Commission, is at present engaged in preparing plans for co-ordinating hospital services and securing closer co-operation between hospitals. The country is being divided into hospital regions. Such regions are being based, not upon the narrow limits of local government boundaries, but on the best means of meeting the hospital needs of the country. Each region will be based upon a key


hospital, at which will be centralised those consultant and specialist services which will be available to the other hospitals of the area; and in each region there will be a council who will be responsible for relating hospital work and needs, and seeing that there are neither gaps nor overlapping in the hospital facilities. The recommendations as to regional boundaries will soon be tabled, and progress can then be made in coordinating the facilities in each region.
Such work will need the collaboration, not only of the voluntary hospitals, but of the local authorities who control public hospitals, and I am sure that such cooperation will be welcomed by the voluntary hospitals, for in some such plan of co-ordination lies the solution of the problem of voluntary or public hospitals. To a regional council on which both are adequately represented, both voluntary and public hospitals could surrender control of general and major policy, while maintaining the domestic management of their own institutions. Only by such a surrender, only by such co-ordination and cooperation, by the elimination of wasteful overlapping and the filling of obvious gaps, can a proper hospital service for the country be built up. That coordination and co-operation is a very pressing need in peace-time; it will be essential and vital if ever this country has to face war. The means of that cooperation are being worked out under peace-time conditions. I hope that that will be expedited and hastened by the urgent need for seeing that, if we are ever at war again, that co-ordination and co-operation shall be forthcoming. My plea to the Minister is that in anything he does he will bear in mind that such plans are being worked out at the present time, and that he will see that those who are working them out will be supported and encouraged in their work, and that out of war-time necessity we shall achieve something which will be of value to peace as well.

9.59 p.m.

Mr. Bernays: I should like to begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) on his success in the ballot and on the way in which he has used it. He has certainly inaugurated a most interesting and, from the point of view of my own Depart-

ment, most valuable Debate. I should also like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh (Sir. H. Morris-Jones), who seconded the Motion. He asked me a great many questions, but was kind enough to say that I need not answer all of them. I agree with a great deal of what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Wandsworth (Colonel Nathan), in a speech which, I know, appealed to all parts of the House on account of the valuable and practical suggestions which it contained. I agree with what he said as to the importance of our people knowing what is being done for their safety. I am certain that, if they believe that our plans and our organisation are on the right lines, they will do everything they can to make them work.
I was in Geneva for most of the time of the crisis; in fact, I only returned on the Sunday before the crisis was liquidated; and what impressed me on my return was the staunchness of our people. When I came back and saw what was being done—trenches being dug, gas masks being fitted, Charing Cross Underground Station closed for reconstruction, and constant supplies of stretchers being produced—I felt that these were scenes that might well have struck terror into the boldest hearts. But our people who saw what was being done, who saw those dangers that were ahead of them, did not flinch; and I believe that that exhibition of calm courage may well be a salutary reminder to any potential aggressor that the British people are not soft. I believe, too, that there can be no greater deterrent to a potential aggressor than the knowledge that we were organised as fully as possible to meet the dangers of air raids, and I am sure that that knowledge also is important in upholding our own morale.
What have the Government in mind for the expansion on a great scale of the medical services of the country in time of war? Every speech in the Debate has stressed the need for a plan, and I think I can show that the Government had a plan. Briefly, it was a regional organisation for dealing with casualties on the basis of first making beds available in the existing institutions, and then expanding those facilities by means of satellite annexes. For personnel, there was a register of doctors and a scheme for filling all needs from that register on a unified


basis. The emergency gave us a working plan, and we are now at work on a series of further plans which will form the basis of regional discussion.
The House is no doubt anxious to know what was done in the emergency, and what is being done now, and perhaps it will be for the convenience of the House if I adopt the scheme of my hon. Friend's Motion, and deal separately with each of the items that he includes. First of all, he stresses the importance of medical and auxiliary personnel. Some months ago the British Medical Association—not entirely, as I think my hon. Friend suggested, on their own responsibility, but on the invitation of the Committee of Imperial Defence—compiled a register of the medical personnel that would be available in time of war, and this register now includes 95 per cent. of the doctors of the country. Personally, I have a rather higher opinion of the profession than the hon. Lady the Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill), and I feel that—

Dr. Summerskill: I do not think that that is really fair. I said that probably I was able to analyse the figures better than the hon. Gentleman could.

Mr. Bernays: I understood the hon. Lady to say that she thought that some of them had put their names on the register because they wished to evade conscription.

Dr. Summerskill: I would ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the word "evade." I did not use the word "evade."

Mr. Bernays: Then I will say "avoid."

Dr. Summerskill: Which is very different.

Mr. Bernays: The hon. Lady is entitled to her point of view, but I thought she was a little unfair to her own profession. If war had come, the medical personnel would have been directed, through the Central Emergency Committee of the British Medical Association, to the places where the needs were greatest. I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans who suggested that the doctors, having signed this register, heard nothing more of the matter. I would point out that the register was a file, not an order to move. Its object was to obtain the information upon which alone orders to move could be given. I think the House

will agree that it was quite impossible to give the order to move until the air raids actually began, because it was impossible, as so many hon. Members have pointed out, to estimate where the main attacks would be delivered. Clearly, at the outbreak of war the best place for the doctor is to be with his own patients. There is bound to be a heavy strain on his practice, particularly if he is in an area to which great sections of the populations from the crowded areas are being evacuated. In any case, the most obvious air-raid dressing station is a doctor's own consulting room. He may well find, in the first few hours of war, that where he is needed most is on his own doorstep, and I think the House will appreciate that it is most important to avoid any immobilising of doctors by concentrating them in one place before there is actual need for their services.

Sir F. Fremantle: That is a complete volte face from the original idea of the Home Office, that the air-raid posts would not have doctors at all. Obviously, they could not be in the doctors' surgeries.

Mr. Bernays: I am coming to that. Of course, the position is different now that the Ministry of Health has taken over the matter. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Wandsworth suggested that the doctors might have more than one loyalty, and clearly proper co-operation is most important. A big step has been taken towards it by an arrangement that not all the Territorial Army hospitals originally designated will necessarily be mobilised at the outbreak of war. That will mean that hundreds of doctors and nurses will be available for the treatment of civilians. Meanwhile discussions are taking place between the Departments on the whole question of requirements that might be conflicting, and it is a problem to which my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal is giving particular attention.
With regard to nurses, during the crisis arrangements were made to put hospitals in touch with the local nursing organisations; but experience has shown that some more complete organisation is necessary, and a central register of nurses and nursing auxiliaries who would be available in time of war is being established. The next item referred to in the Motion is the institutions.

Sir F. Fremantle: With regard to nurses and auxiliaries, will there be some


arrangement by which the function of the St. John Ambulance and the Red Cross will be clearly defined?

Mr. Bernays: Yes, that is under consideration now.

Colonel Nathan: Were nursing auxiliaries to be auxiliary to the hospital nursing service as a whole, or were they, as far as possible, to be detailed beforehand to some particular hospital?

Mr. Bernays: I would like notice of that, in order to be able to give a more informative answer.

Dr. Summerskill: Do the Government contemplate any training scheme for the nurses and any new method of improvement?

Mr. Bernays: Yes, there is under consideration now a plan for the recruitment of additional nurses and for giving a training to girls, at any rate, to do first-aid work. The Government have, of course, been deeply conscious of the need for a greatly expanded potential hospital service, and, as a preliminary to this, they undertook early this year a survey of the whole of the existing hospital accommodation in England and Wales, while the Department of Health carried out the same piece of work in Scotland. In England and Wales, the survey covered just under 3,000 hospitals and institutions, and just over 400,000 beds. Having made a census of the beds available, the next problem was how to organise the accommodation for an emergency.
Hospital officers—I suppose the hon. Lady would refer to them as experts, but they are none the worse for that—from our medical staff at once proceeded to every region in the country with instructions to prepare schemes for freeing as much hospital accommodation as possible in the most congested areas of their regions, so that if an emergency should develop before it was possible to evolve more elaborate schemes, there would have been thousands of beds available immediately for air-raid casualties. On the outbreak of war there would have been 150,000 beds available for air-raid casualties, and we were confident that, at the end of a fortnight, that 150,000 would have been increased by an additional 100,000. Meanwhile the Home Secretary had already appointed a committee of

medical experts, under the chairmanship of Sir Charles Wilson, to consider what was required for a casualty organisation in the London area.
That committee presented a number of conclusions of great value, and I am sure the House will be grateful to them for the self-sacrificing haste with which they worked. The committee set down conclusions on all the general issues arising out of a casualty organisation. Nobody would suggest that a committee should undertake the detailed work of applying the conclusions to individual hospitals, but their conclusions were embodied in a circular which was sent to every county council, county borough council and voluntary hospital authority in the country, informing them that every hospital must be ready to clear as many beds as possible on receiving warning from the Government that an emergency had arisen, and also that they must prepare schemes for expanding their hospital accommodation. That is some answer to the criticism that the hospitals were left without instructions. As this circular shows, every effort was made so that the hospitals should be informed as early as possible of what would be expected of them.

Colonel Nathan: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but, while I speak on correction—I am charging my memory—I believe he is completely mistaken in thinking that any such circular was sent to the voluntary hospitals. I say nothing of the county council or municipal hospitals, because know nothing of them.

Mr. Bernays: Of course, I will inquire into that, but here is the circular itself, which, I am informed by my advisers, was in fact sent to all these organisations. If it has not gone to the hospital my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind, I will inquire into it. In addition, there was, of course, the hospital officer on the spot, ready to assist in working out particular schemes on the general lines laid down in the circular. Later, the Ministry of Health made direct contact with some hundreds of hospitals. The House will appreciate that we could not possibly allot a precise part to every one of the 3,000 hospitals in the country, since, after all, we had no more fore-knowledge than anyone else of what the nature of the emergency would be.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Wandsworth raised also the point of what he called the provision of a war book, and in answer to that question our objective is, if humanly possible, to work out a detailed war book, or scheme of operations with which the hospitals can conform. Hospitals are not the first, but in a sense they are the last, stage in the treatment of air-raid casualties, and I fully appreciate the importance that has been laid in this Debate upon air-raid posts. It is perfectly true that many casualties will not require treatment in hospitals, and indeed it is most important that hospitals should not be choked up with what one might call cases that are not sufficiently serious for hospital treatment. It is most important that in an air raid there should not be a stampede upon the hospitals. For what I might call the walking wounded, an air-raid post or dressing station is required, and dressing stations will also give, probably, the immediate treatment necessary even for those who will afterwards have to go on to the hospitals. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans and my hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh and other hon. Members have asked me who will be responsible for the air-raid posts.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: I am sorry to intervene here, but before my hon. Friend comes to that, would he give the House an idea of the form these air-raid posts are to take?

Mr. Bernays: I am trying to deal with one question at a time.

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman has dealt with the casualty clearing hospitals, but he has not dealt with the base hospital, which is so important. Would he mind telling the House what our experts have decided to do about the base hospital, and also whether they are no longer going to put up tents as hospitals?

Mr. Bernays: That will come out in the course of my speech. I do not want to be interrupted on this very important point of air-raid posts. The first question that has been asked about them is, Who is to be responsible for them? My answer is, the Minister of Health and my own Department. We have now been given that responsibility and also that of the ambulance services. They have now both been transferred to the Ministry of Health, so that both the transfer and the

treatment of air-raid casualties are under one Department, and there is now a complete chain of responsibility from the time a casualty reaches the air-raid post to, I will not say the time that it goes to the mortuary, but the time when the patient reaches the convalescent home. Another question is, Will there be doctors there? My reply to that is that it is the policy of my Department that every air-raid post shall be staffed by a doctor. I have also been asked where we expect to get the doctors from. It is our view that the best man for the air-raid post is probably the man who is in a local practice in the area in which the air-raid post is established. My hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh asked where the air-raid posts will be?

Sir H. Morris-Jones: I asked what kind of aid posts they are to be? What form will they take? Will they be concrete aid-posts?

Mr. Bernays: My hon. Friend did ask where they would be. They will be in positions most suitable for working in the closest possible conjunction with the hospitals. Various hon. Members have asked me whether the air-raid posts will take the form of underground shelters. I am not in a position to give a reply tonight. This whole question of underground shelters is very much before my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal at the present time, and he and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health will take very careful account of the powerful speeches that have been made on this question to-night. A circular dealing with these questions will shortly be issued to local authorities. Local authorities will continue to be responsible for preparing schemes for an ambulance organisation and also for first-aid posts. The Ministry will see that these are properly complementary to the hospital service, and that the first-aid posts are so placed and designed as to relieve the hospitals so far as that can possibly be done. The advice of the Department's medical officers will be at the disposal of the authorities in preparing their schemes.
I come now to the question of additional equipment. Of beds and mattresses we have ordered 50,000 of each. In regard to stretchers, orders have been given for 90,000. Large quantities have already been delivered and we expect the final


delivery in a few weeks. With regard to surgical equipment, I will give one instance of what we are doing in that direction. The London County Council have been authorised to spend £4,000 in equipping 10 of their large fever hospitals, which were allocated for evacuation, with surgical equipment. On 14th September we instructed our hospital officers to get into touch with the hospitals and advise them to lay in a reserve stock of drugs and dressings sufficient for four weeks, in the event of an emergency arising. I have taken note of the facts that have been raised in Debate in regard to the difficulty at the last moment of getting some of these necessary medical requisites, and I can say that the question is being very actively taken in hand in my Department.

Mr. Simmonds: Hon. Members have heard that a number of hospitals purchased instruments during the emergency and have been unable to obtain authority to receive payment for them. Can my hon. Friend say whether that position has been completely rectified?

Mr. Bernays: I am glad to have an opportunity of dealing with that point. With regard to the stores that were laid in, the great majority of them, I understand, can be used in the future, and, therefore, they do not involve a loss. With regard to any other exceptional claims, the Ministry of Health has already expressed its willingness to consider them if the voluntary hospitals will make their claims.
With regard to transport, the last item mentioned in the Motion. Transport is a vital question in clearing the hospitals. The size of the problem in London alone will be realised when I tell the House that, in addition to the patients who were to be sent home, between 3,000 and 4,000 patients taken from 34 of the larger general hospitals in London which would be most valuable to the casualty organisation were to be removed on stretchers to much smaller towns approximately 50 miles distant. That, I think, answers one of the points raised by the hon. Member for Denbigh. Our policy was to evacuate as many as the medical officers thought were fit to be evacuated. It may be asked, how were we going to do it? Take London. These details, I think,

will show the great extent of the preparations which were made, and for which I do not think sufficient credit has so far been given. At 12 to 24 hours notice 300 Green Line buses were to be converted into ambulances each capable of taking 11 stretchers, and the fitters were ready to stand by in order to make the conversion. With the co-operation of the railway companies 21 ambulance trains were available at selected stations, not the London termini, and each of these trains had a compartment in the rear specially prepared for doctors and nurses. The St. John Ambulance Brigade arranged to provide stretcher bearers to carry the patients from the buses to the trains. Detailed plans were worked out between the London Transport Board and the railway companies to ensure exact synchronisation, and on 24th September the necessary number of stretchers was distributed to each evacuating hospital. From that point onwards the hospital evacuation scheme for London could have been put into force at 12 hours' notice.
I have now taken point by point the matters raised in the Motion, and I hope I have shown that effective action was taken on all of them in the emergency, and that, where necessary, steps are being taken to supplement the organisation. I would like now to say a word or two on the question raised in the last lines of the Motion, that is the need for a long-term plan
carried out under responsible co-operation between the British Medical Association and other representatives of the medical profession and of the hospitals, with the several Government Departments concerned.
We are very glad that the House is urging us to devise a scheme without delay. It is already in existence. All that it requires is amendment in the light of what happened during the crisis. This is what we are doing now. Hospital officers have been reviewing the hospital accommodation in their regions to determine where it must be increased and where it must be improved. The plans for this are now complete, and the next step is for the hospital officers to get into touch with all the hospital authorities concerned and agree with them exactly what part they will be expected to play. That is the stage reached at present, and individual local discussions have been arranged. It is hoped shortly to arrange a series of regional conferences at which proposals


can generally be considered, not only with the hospital authorities but also with representatives of the medical profession. So soon as plans are settled—and it is hoped that for the most part they will be settled before the end of the year—equipment will be distributed and work undertaken to improve facilities where that is required. The next stage after that will be to consider what is required in the way of completely new hospital accommodation, either by ear-marking for the purpose existing buildings which could be converted in emergency or by preparing sites where huts or tents could be erected. On the subject of tents, I would say to the hon. Lady the Member for West Fulham that the question is still under discussion, and in fact, as yet a decision has not been arrived at as to whether tents would be a suitable method of dealing with this problem.
Into the whole problem, of course, enters that of civilian evacuation. I fully agree with the hon. Member for St. Albans upon the importance of medical services in that connection. If civilian evacuation is carried out on a big scale, a heavy strain will be thrown on the medical services of the receiving areas, and in working out the emergency hospital schemes my Department is giving considerable attention to this problem. The two pieces of work will be closely co-ordinated. As soon as the civilian evacuation plans are more advanced, the Department will seek the assistance of the medical profession in considering what emergency services must be provided. Already the Society of Medical Officers of Health are formulating suggestions as to what should be done, and it will be necessary to concert plans with the British Medical Association for transferring doctors to country districts where the influx of new patients calls for a strengthening of the medical organisation in those districts. That, then, in terms as briefly as I could make it, is the organisation of medical services in civilian defence.
In conclusion, I want to say in all sincerity that we have found this Debate most valuable, and that we shall take into very careful account the suggestions that have been made. If I have not been able to answer all the questions that have been put to me to-night, it is not because I do not realise their importance. The problem, after all, that we

have had to face at the Ministry of Health during these last few weeks is of a kind that no medical organisation in history has ever been called upon to face. In ordinary times the local services are liable to be called upon to deal with street accidents, mining disasters, railway disasters, and shipping disasters. These services have never failed to meet the needs. What we have had to envisage during the last two weeks is the possibility of a series of these disasters occurring in several parts of the country and probably simultaneously. Our task at the Ministry of Health has been to do our utmost to strengthen and supplement the local organisations and to make available for them additional reserves of personnel, accommodation and equipment. Of course, our proposals have had to be in many cases hurriedly improvised, but I do believe that what was done in the weeks before the crisis was right and sound and that it would have stood the test.

Sir F. Fremantle: Will my hon. Friend say whether this organisation of which he has spoken is in absolute, vital touch with the Army, Navy and Air Force, especially as regards the demand on medical personnel and the hospitals?

Mr. Bernays: Yes, I can certainly give that assurance.

10.36 p.m.

Captain Elliston: We have had such a full and reassuring statement from the Parliamentary Secretary that it only remains for me to emphasise a few of those points which have caused a good deal of anxiety to some of my hon. Friends on this side of the House. I was delighted to hear from my hon. Friend that he intends to make the fullest possible use of the register which has been compiled by the British Medical Association. I think, despite what was said by the hon. Lady the Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill), that the compilation of that register was an act of great patriotism. It is remarkable that the members of a great and busy profession were, to the extent of go per cent., prepared to place themselves at the disposal of the nation in a time of emergency. That register exists to-day and we have heard that there is also to be an advisory committee which, in consultation with the


British Medical Association and the various services, will utilise that list to the best advantage.
One has been told that at the time of the last crisis various services were helping themselves out of the pool created by that register; that the Royal Army Medical Corps, the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy were drawing on that list without full consultation with the organisation of the profession which had prepared the register. Now that the register will come under the charge of the Ministry of Health, I take it there is no danger of such a thing happening again. I take it that not only will the Ministry go to that register to find the men available, but that it will consult with the advisory committee regarding the services which each man on that register can render. One man can best serve the Air Force, while another is obviously best qualified for the Navy, another for the Army and others for service to the civil population. It is not only the Army, Navy and Air Force which will want medical officers. If we are to evacuate great masses of the population they must take their doctors with them, or the men on the spot must be utilised to deal with that influx of population. One hopes that with the register and the advisory committee we shall avoid those difficulties which occurred in the last War. I remember being much surprised to find the medical registrar of one of our greatest medical schools detailed to act as a regimental medical officer. That man to-day is a great teacher, a great physician, and one of the leading consultants in London, but in the War it was nobody's business to see that he got the work for which he was best suited. Instead of being a consultant physician in a military hospital, he was doing what was almost first-aid work, at the front. For that reason I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) and his medical colleague who seconded the Motion will have felt very pleased that full use is to be made of the B.M.A. register.
There has been an attempt to disparage the work of local authorities and to make a great deal of the blunders committed by Departments of the Government. For my part, I think it is very remarkable indeed that the blunders were so few and that the work achieved was so good. I am a member of a local authority, and I

have served on its air-raid precautions committee since its formation, and I can assure this House that six weeks before the crisis one had the greatest difficulty in persuading the members of the public to take the least interest in the subject: they were quite indifferent. One could go to responsible firms, to men with large works, and so on, and one was as it were laughed aside when one talked about the necessity of precautions. Those are the people who to-day are telling us in this House haw the Government neglected to take precautions in this direction or in that. It is true, as we have heard tonight, that there are many local authorities which refused to take their A.R.P. duties seriously, and I should like to ask the hon. Lady the Member for West Fulham to tell us what some of her friends have done in this connection. If there are local authorities which showed that irresponsible way of dealing with the appointment of A.R.P., officers, they must be very exceptional. It is easy enough to laugh at A.R.P. officers, but where are you likely to find a man better acquainted with the effects of explosives or the necessary engineering measures than a retired officer, for instance, of the Royal Engineers? In many cases such retired officers have been appointed and are doing their work remarkably well.
I have also had experience of air-raid precautions work in the county borough of Blackburn, which it is my privilege to represent here. I have been fortunate, I think, in seeing A.R.P. committees at work in two areas which have set a good example to others. Blackburn were pioneers in undertaking duties in connection with air raids, and I believe their example has been copied by many towns, especially in the North of England. In the City of London again I have seen a very energetic A.R.P. officer putting excellent schemes into effect, and nobly supported on the medical side by the medical officer of health. I have no doubt that in most cases medical duties are assigned to the medical officers of health in the district, and it is certain that if we expect to get efficient medical services and efficient training of the personnel for the various A.R.P. purposes, we shall have to have medical officers of health administering and co-ordinating medical aid in every area. Many A.R.P. committees were told by their experts that they must make their plans on the expectation of


raids on a large scale, repeated perhaps at short and frequent intervals, with high explosives, with or without poison gas, and incendiary bombs. In that expectation we accepted the principle that it was essential that our first-aid posts must be underground, resistant to high explosive bombs and splinter-proof.
Without that underground shelter it is certain that the work of the first-aid posts could not be carried on with any degree of efficiency. We also accepted the principle that we had to provide for these first-aid posts personnel and equipment which should be available not only for services there, but for services in neighbouring stations where they might be called to do duty. In London, where the metropolitan boroughs and the city corporation have been doing the A.R.P. work, it must be very desirable to have some co-ordinating body that can make their services, as it were, interchangeable, so that various units can be transferred from place to place where their services may be required. The same thing might apply in Lancashire, where there are boroughs very near to one another. If we are going to multiply the effective forces at our disposal, they should be transferable under some coordinating body.
I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary has reassured us on the subject of qualified medical practitioners and first-aid posts. We are convinced in the city that without the provision of medical officers at these posts there would be nothing but misunderstandings and difficulties. It has been said this evening that the distinction between a light and a serious case is whether the patient can walk. In the city we do not think it necessarily follows that all cases that are unable to walk will be serious cases. They may be such cases as simple fractures or bums, which may be treated as light cases, but which may not be capable of walking. Such cases should be dealt with at the first-aid posts. If they are sent to the hospitals because of the absence of a doctor to state the extent of the injury, there will be serious overcrowding and confusion. The subject of personnel is very important.
If we are to secure the discipline, efficiency and completeness of training that are necessary for this work, the workers at the first-aid posts and in other

connections should be enlisted on the same lines as the Territorial Force. They should be treated in the same way, and in their training period should have pay as in the Territorials. It is only so that you can establish a contractual obligation which will enable you to insist on complete training and efficiency. I hope the Minister will consider that point and other matters of importance, such as that of compensation for death and injury to those engaged in air-raid precautions work. A point that occurs to me is that the character of these first-aid posts may change altogether and that in certain circumstances it may be necessary to take even serious cases. That, I hope, will be duly considered. I do not wish to disturb the House with gruesome reflections, but the question of the identification and disposal of the dead came before our consideration in the City. Our advisers are strongly of opinion that all civilians should carry identification discs. The disposal of the dead is also a matter that should be provided for. It is necessary that these things should be considered in advance so that we are not likely to be taken by surprise.
I think everyone must have been impressed with the account given by the Parliamentary Secretary of what had been accomplished in a short time and in the face of great public indifference. I have heard from an independent source that the transport arrangements were quite remarkable and unsurpassed in a time of emergency such as came upon us so unexpectedly and at such short notice. I have heard, too, of the fine work done by the Board of Control in connection with the mental hospitals. If the whole story was told of the provisions that have been made for the transfer of patients, for the provision of country hospitals, for the evacuation of women and children and in other directions, I think we should be rather proud of our record, instead of continually apologising and raking up little incidents and examples of inefficiency that occurred. I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on the account that he gave us and I wish to express my confidence in what we may expect from the Ministry of Health in the administration of this responsibility. They are accustomed to work with local authorities and with doctors and they are likely to avoid possible mistakes. The doctors have set


us all an example of public service in placing themselves at the disposal of the country, and I think the Ministry can be relied upon to use their services to the greatest advantage and in full consultation with the profession, so as to avoid difficulties which have been referred to, such as that of the man taken away from his home and seeing his whole living imperilled.
If the British Medical Association are responsible for these arrangements I think we can be certain that steps will be taken to protect the practices of those doctors who go on active service. Their colleagues will safeguard their rights as far as it is possible to do so; there will be a genuine give-and-take throughout the profession, so that they can go without undue anxiety to undertake any duties assigned to them. We are all very much indebted to the hon. Member for St. Albans for bringing up a matter of such great importance to the whole country. It has given others an opportunity of making useful contributions to the Debate. We have heard two excellent speeches on the subject of the hospital side of A.R.P. work, and it

is gratifying to know that laymen are so closely interested in co-operating with the medical profession in the arrangements for dealing with casualties.

Resolved,

"That this House recognises the call upon medical services in case of air raids as a cardinal factor in such an emergency; is of opinion that a complete and detailed scheme is required providing for the medical and auxiliary personnel, the institutions, equipment, communications, and transport entailed; and demands that both policy and administration shall be devised without delay and carried out under responsible co-operation between the British Medical Association and other representatives of the medical profession and of the hospitals, with the several Government Departments concerned."

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Hope.]

Adjourned accordingly at Two Minutes before Eleven o'Clock.